ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked-

Gross Domestic Product

Chris Evans: What factors he has identified as underlying the fall in gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2010.

George Osborne: The Office for National Statistics attributes the actual fall in GDP to the bad weather in December, but we have been clear that even without that effect, the numbers were disappointing. In the past week, there have been more encouraging survey data showing services, construction, retail and especially manufacturing all growing more strongly-something the Opposition have been mysteriously silent about.

Chris Evans: Could the Chancellor please tell the traders on Blackwood High street whom I met this Saturday whether the rise in VAT will help or hinder them this quarter?

George Osborne: The VAT increase, like the other measures we are taking, helps to deal with the record Budget deficit that we inherited from the Labour party. By dealing with that, we have provided financial stability for the British economy. That has also been made clear by the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who would also have gone ahead with a VAT increase.

John Redwood: Given that the last quarter of last year saw a big real increase in public spending and a further big increase in debt, does that not show that there is no necessary connection between those things and growth and that it would be quite wrong to think that spending and borrowing more would solve the problem?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Of course, in December, the Government were spending, in real terms, a record amount. I make the point again that we inherited a record Budget deficit. I believe that Labour's plan, set out in its March Budget, was to start cuts in April this year. We have set out a credible plan and we are awaiting one from Labour.

Stephen Timms: The figures underline that the economy is not out of the danger zone. Does the Chancellor know of the concern expressed by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation about a new lost generation of unemployed young people of the kind we saw in the '80s and '90s? What assessment has he made of measures the Government can take to avoid that problem?

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that unemployment went up by 1 million under the previous Government. We know that even in the good years, the problem of youth unemployment increased and that we as a country were not able to do much about it. This Government are determined to tackle that head-on with reform of the welfare system so that it always pays to work and, at the same time, with the new Work programme, which will give young people the skills and opportunities they need to get off those unemployment rolls.

Andrew Tyrie: In giving evidence before the Treasury Committee, Lord Turnbull made it clear that spending as a proportion of GDP should be nearer 40% than the current level of nearly 50%. The OECD has said that the deficit will retard growth. Will the Chancellor make more of the case that action is needed to tackle the deficit not just on financial grounds but to help release the wealth-creating sectors of the economy?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is clearly correct that it is unsustainable for the Government to be consuming almost 50% of national income. Lord Turnbull observes that under Labour and Conservative Governments in the past, the number was closer to 40%. Of course, the deficit reduction plan that we have set out brings that about.

Edward Balls: It is an honour and a great responsibility to shadow the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this critical time for our economy and our country. I pay tribute to my predecessor and thank him for everything he did despite the fact that I seem to have inherited an excessively large number of breakfast meetings from him. It is a good job that I did not have one today, or I would have missed this morning's rather hurried mini-Budget.
	It snowed so badly in December in Britain that airports closed, our economy shuddered to a halt, consumer confidence slumped and unemployment rose. In America, it also snowed so badly that airports closed, but the pace of US economic growth increased, consumer confidence was high and unemployment fell to a two-year low. Could the Chancellor tell the House whether there is something different about snow in Britain-or is there a better explanation as to why the American economy grew and Britain's did not?

George Osborne: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on his appointment. Now he and the Leader of the Opposition know what it is like to be second choice. The new shadow Chancellor knows, because he was at the Treasury and he is a man with a past, that Britain had the largest housing boom, the biggest banking crash and the largest budget deficit, and as a result, recovering from the deepest recession was always going to be challenging and choppy, but we have set out a credible plan, including an increase in the bank levy, to deal with the budget deficit, which he refuses to deal with because he is a deficit denier.

Edward Balls: No answer to the question on America. Perhaps the Chancellor should have spent less time on the ski slopes of Switzerland and more time in the conference halls of Davos, listening to the American Treasury Secretary. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what he said:
	"You've got to make sure you don't hurt the recovery . . . There are some people who like to move . . . very quickly to do very deep cuts in spending but it is not the responsible way to do it."
	In June, unemployment was falling and growth was forecast to be 2.3% this year. Now unemployment is rising and growth is stalled. With consumer confidence falling, inflation rising, no bank lending agreement, no plan for jobs, no plan for growth, no plan B, does the Chancellor really expect us to believe that he can meet his forecast for economic growth this year, or will he have to stand at the Dispatch Box at the Budget in six weeks and downgrade his very first growth forecast?

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman clearly had a lot of time to prepare that, but I am not sure it all came out as he expected. We have had to deal with his economic legacy and he is running away from his past. He was the City Minister who knighted Fred Goodwin. He is the economic adviser whose fiscal policy has led to fiscal disaster. He is the leadership candidate who, for reasons of political positioning, denies the deficit. The truth is this: we have a plan to clear up his mess. He has no plan at all.

Financial Regulation

Karl McCartney: What progress he has made in reforming the tripartite system of financial regulation.

Jane Ellison: What progress he has made in reforming the tripartite system of financial regulation.

David Tredinnick: What progress he has made in reforming the tripartite system of financial regulation.

George Osborne: The tripartite system of financial regulation put in place by the new Chancellor and his advisers in 1997 failed spectacularly and cost the British people billions of pounds. That is why we are replacing the tripartite system with a much tougher and more coherent regime led by the Bank of England. We aim to have that system in place by the end of 2012. I repeat what I just said: we have today increased the rate of the Government's permanent bank levy for this year in order to raise £2.5 billion net. This will mean that the banks pay more in tax in each and every year of this Government than they did in the last year of the previous Government. Through this new bank tax being made permanent and with the revenue announcement today, the banks will be making a fairer contribution to our economic recovery.

Karl McCartney: Does my right hon. Friend regret the fact that the system of financial regulation, which was drawn up by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), failed to prevent the greatest financial crisis in our country in living memory?

George Osborne: Of course I regret it, because we are all having to deal with the consequences. We still do not know-the legislation will come before the House of Commons-whether the Opposition support changing the system of regulation that was established by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) in 1997. I guess we will find out. The Government are clear-we must fix the system of regulation that went so badly wrong, and we believe that giving the Bank of England the lead responsibility on that will help.

Jane Ellison: As the Chancellor knows, the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that the previous Government got regulation wrong. One area that was wrong was inadequate customer protection in the consumer credit market. Given considerable recent interest in the subject in the House, can he update us on the creation of the consumer protection agency?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. It was an interesting admission from the Leader of the Opposition that things started to go badly wrong when he was an adviser at the Treasury. Maybe the man he did the photocopying for will make a similar admission. The creation of a consumer protection and markets agency will provide a stronger consumer voice and a consumer champion. It will be a world-class regulator. We are assembling the right team to run that agency, including many talented people who were at the Financial Services Authority. I am delighted that Martin Wheatley has been appointed as the chief executive designate. He has an outstanding record as a regulator around the world and his arrival bodes well for the future of the new agency.

David Tredinnick: Was the three-way split in financial regulation the worst financial decision taken by the previous Government, or has something else caught my right hon. Friend's eye?

George Osborne: There is the selling off of the gold at a record low and the pensions tax that destroyed our pensions system, but I have to say that, in terms of sheer cost to the British taxpayer, the system of regulation designed by the shadow Chancellor was pretty catastrophic.

Sharon Hodgson: Why did the Chancellor endorse the report published by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) just a few weeks before the collapse of Northern Rock, which called for the deregulation of the mortgage market? Does he still support its conclusions?

Chris Ruane: Come on, straight answer.

George Osborne: The new Parliamentary Private Secretary is barracking; what a shame he has moved four Benches down, because he is probably going to get louder. I can tell the hon. Lady that I explicitly disagreed with that recommendation in the report at the time.

Stewart Hosie: It is understood that the new Prudential Regulation Authority intends to do less than the Financial Services Authority did to reduce the probability of bank failure. Given that the failure of any bank, even with a proper resolution regime, could contribute to a systemic crisis in confidence, can I have the Chancellor's assurance that he will put all the pressure he can on the PRA to ensure that it continues with active supervision to minimise the probability of bank failure at any level?

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I will certainly do that. I do not think that he has given a fair representation of the role that we expect the prudential regulator to fulfil. What I will say about the prudential regulator and the fact that it will come under the aegis of the Bank of England is this: I hope that it will exercise discretion and judgment as well as simply making sure that boxes are ticked. The decision to allow Royal Bank of Scotland to buy ABN AMRO in 2007 might have ticked the various boxes in the regulations at the time, but it was clearly the wrong judgment. I expect and hope that in future our new regulator would be able to step in at that point.

Angela Eagle: Instead of making politically convenient and economically ludicrous pronouncements that it was the UK's tripartite system of banking regulation that somehow caused the global credit crunch, can the Chancellor explain to the House why his own flagship banking reforms are now running late and why his cosy private talks with the banks on bonuses have failed to materialise? Was not today's panic announcement just further proof that with this Chancellor, as CBI chief Richard Lambert has said, it is all politics and no economics?

George Osborne: The hon. Lady asks why the legislation is "running late". The previous shadow Chancellor wrote to me and asked for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I agreed to the request. Obviously, that has not been communicated to those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Manufacturing Growth

Fiona Bruce: What assessment he has made of the prospects for growth of the manufacturing sector.

David Gauke: The independent Office for Budget Responsibility is responsible for the official economic and fiscal forecast. Returning the UK to sustainable economic growth is the Government's overriding priority. This includes a strongly performing manufacturing sector. The Chartered Institute for Purchasing and Supply's purchasing managers' index for January showed the manufacturing index at a record high. This was accompanied by a rapid increase in manufacturing outputs and the fastest growth in new orders in the survey's history.

Fiona Bruce: The closure has been announced of the bathroom manufacturer Ideal Standard, which is based in Middlewich in my constituency. Middlewich is a feisty town, as are its people, who want to rise to the challenge that this news presents. What support and resources can the Government provide to enable the people of Middlewich to help themselves to create jobs, develop new industries and go for growth?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise in the business world. In the longer term, it is vital that we get the fundamentals right and have sustainable public finances, and the Government are pursuing policies that will favour growth. In the short term, obviously her constituents have our sympathy. Jobcentre Plus is able to provide a rapid response service in those areas, and I am sure that it will be acting closely with her constituents.

Barbara Keeley: A firm in my constituency manufactures parts for motorbikes, and it plans to move into the full production of motorbikes, so why have the Government decided to cut investment allowance, which will hit firms that are trying to make such moves? How can there be growth with policies that undermine manufacturing?

David Gauke: We announced in the June Budget corporation tax reductions that will benefit all sectors, including manufacturing. As we can see, so far manufacturing is doing well. Of course, we cannot be complacent, but the early signs are that our policies are helping.

Claire Perry: I want to ask the ministerial team which piece of recent data they find most interesting: the record level of manufacturing activity, the rebound in consumer confidence or the endorsement by the Institute for Fiscal Studies of this Government's economic policy in paying off the previous Government's debt?

David Gauke: It is absolutely clear that this Government are on the right course. There are some encouraging signs, but none the less we must stick to the course. The early indications are, in manufacturing in particular, that that sector of the economy is growing well.

Kerry McCarthy: We share the Government's desire for a strong manufacturing sector, hence our disappointment at Pfizer moving overseas and the Government's failure to support Sheffield Forgemasters. According to today's  Financial Times, the Deputy Prime Minister, despite his dismal track record on Forgemasters, is leading the drive for more bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises to secure regional economic growth. Who is now in charge of growth policy? Is it the Chancellor or the Deputy Prime Minister?

David Gauke: It may come as a surprise to Opposition Members, but an entire Government are capable of working together. That was not the experience when the Treasury was being run by the current shadow Chancellor.

Structural Deficit

Rehman Chishti: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the size of the structural deficit.

John Howell: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the size of the structural deficit.

Danny Alexander: The structural deficit was 8.8% of GDP in 2009-10. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast is for it to be 7.6% in 2010-11, falling to 0.3% by 2015-16. More information is in the OBR's forecast.

Rehman Chishti: OECD figures in November show that Britain entered the financial crisis with the largest structural budget deficit in the G7. Does the Chief Secretary believe that this country entered the crisis led by the biggest deficit deniers in the G7?

Danny Alexander: That is a very good question. The previous Government were running a structural deficit from 2001-02, with a structural deficit of 2.6% in 2007-08, the largest, as the hon. Gentleman says, in the G7 in 2007. They were deficit deniers then, they are deficit deniers now, and that is why they have no answers to the problems of our country today.

John Howell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Tony Blair has said that
	"from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the potential structural deficit".
	How would my right hon. Friend assess the effect of that failure on the current trend in the structural deficit?

Danny Alexander: Clearly, we as a Government are having to clear up the enormous mess that the previous Government left. That is why we have had to embark on some very difficult decisions on public spending and, indeed, taxation, but it is just worth listening to the OECD, which states that
	"the UK was unique in its need for fiscal consolidation, because the deficit had gone completely out of control.

John Cryer: On the basis of what the Chief Secretary has just said, why did the current Chancellor promise in 2008 to match Labour's spending plans?

Danny Alexander: Our country's key problem-the hon. Gentleman should accept it, not deny it like his Front Benchers-is that we have an enormous budget deficit, which was caused by the previous Government's failures. We have to clean up that mess if our country is going to get back to prosperity, and, until the Opposition accept that very simple fact, they will have no answers at all.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Two things: first, I want to hear both questions and answers; secondly, can I- [ Interruption. ] Order. Can I just ask Members on both sides of the House to give some thought to how our proceedings are regarded by the people whose support we were busily seeking less than a year ago?

David Hanson: Will the Chief Secretary first confirm that public sector debt was 42.5% in 1997 and 36.5% in 2008, the second-lowest debt of any G7 country? Will he secondly accept that investment during the last two years of the Labour Government was designed to keep people in their jobs and homes, expenditure that he supported at the time? Given the disastrous economic figures and the CBI's comments before Christmas, will he just admit that what he is missing is a growth strategy, not the cuts that he opposed during the election?

Danny Alexander: What was missing from that was any reference to the subject of the question, which was the deficit. Labour Members seem keen to talk about everything except the deficit, which they left for this Government to clean up. I do not apologise at all for the tough decisions we have had to take to sort out that deficit, to introduce tax rises and to deal with public spending to ensure that this country gets back on track. They maxed out the credit card; we have to pay it off.

Charities (VAT)

Greg Mulholland: If he will take steps to allow charities providing services transferred to them by the NHS to recover value added tax.

David Gauke: Charities, voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises make a valuable contribution to our communities. That is why the Government provide about £3 billion in tax relief for charities. There are no plans to change the rules which govern the recovery of VAT by charities.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The current thrust of Government thinking is that more hospices and end-of-life care services will be delivered by organisations such as Sue Ryder Care, which runs the excellent Wheatfields hospice in my constituency. When it is run by the NHS, as it is currently, it can recover 48% of VAT on non-business supplies, yet when it is transferred to organisations in the charitable sector such as Sue Ryder, it cannot. That is an anomaly that will damage the thrust of Government thinking. Will my hon. Friend meet me and representatives of Sue Ryder to discuss this matter?

David Gauke: I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss it. The VAT that is paid and the VAT that is recovered is taken into account in the funding of the NHS. There are difficulties in trying to resolve this issue without imposing an impractical and complex solution. That is why the focus tends to be on providing tax relief on charitable giving rather than on expenditure incurred by charities.

Bankers' Bonuses

Vernon Coaker: What objectives he has set for the outcome of his discussions to limit the bonuses paid to bankers.

Rosie Cooper: What objectives he has set for the outcome of his discussions to limit the bonuses paid to bankers.

Ronnie Campbell: What objectives he has set for the outcome of his discussions to limit the bonuses paid to bankers.

Mark Hoban: Our objective in these discussions is to create a banking industry that lends to the British economy, contributes to the Exchequer, and supports economic growth and employment. The Government are in discussions with the banks to see if a new settlement can be reached so that bonuses and remuneration policies are more transparent and levels of bonuses paid are smaller than they would otherwise have been. Alongside this, we are looking at options to ensure that banks make an appropriate contribution to local economies and communities and provide the credit required to support the economic recovery, facilitate growth and create jobs.

Vernon Coaker: Can the Minister tell the House why the Chancellor refuses to adopt Labour's plan to repeat last year's £3.5 billion bank bonus tax, as well as the bank levy, and use that money to help create the jobs and growth that so many of our communities badly need?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman should remember the words of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the bank payroll tax did not work. Labour Members went into the last election ruling out a bank levy; they would not take the action that we have taken to ensure that banks pay a fair contribution to the costs they pose to the economy.

Rosie Cooper: My constituents are appalled that the general attitude of the Government seems to be to withstand all criticism and not to deal with the real problem by making bankers accountable for what they are doing and pay their fair share. We are not all in it together.

Mark Hoban: I find that quite rich coming from Labour-the party that gave Fred Goodwin his knighthood. The reality is that under our bank levy the banking sector will pay more every year than it paid in one year under the bank payroll tax. That is the action that this Government have taken to ensure that banks pay their fair contribution towards the Exchequer.

Ronnie Campbell: The Chancellor must think he is good when he has put hundreds of thousands of public servants on the dole, cut pensions, especially those of the police and armed forces, and cut local government finance. It has been reported in the newspapers that a banker is to receive a £9 million bonus. Why does not the Chancellor get off his backside, get into the banks, and get it sorted?

Mark Hoban: I will take no lessons from the Labour party on bank bonuses. The shadow Chancellor presided at the Treasury when big bonuses were being paid out in cash, with no clawback and no lock-up. He backed that light-touch regime in government. We have taken the tough decisions on tackling bonuses. The Opposition should be apologising, not criticising.

Peter Tapsell: Do Treasury Ministers agree that the real problem with bankers' bonuses is that they are paid not out of profits, but out of revenues? Taxing banks after the bonuses have been paid merely depresses dividends, particularly for pension funds. Why are bankers' bonuses not paid out of profits, as they always were by my very efficient stockbroking firm?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, under the old regime, there was no clawback when bonuses were paid out in cash, and no lock-up. The new code on remuneration introduced by the Financial Services Authority, which is ahead of international practice, has clear rules on deferral, requires that bonuses be clawed back for poor performance, and requires that bonuses for significantly highly paid members of staff-those who take risks-be paid out principally in shares, not in cash. That will ensure that the interests of bankers are aligned with those of shareholders.

Matthew Hancock: How much has the Minister been constrained in his dealings with the majority state-owned banks by the contracts on payments that were signed by the Labour party before the election?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the problem. When the previous Government entered into arrangements to bail out RBS and Lloyds, they limited the period of their involvement in the bonus regime. That is why we had to take action this year and why we have engaged with banks through project Merlin to achieve restraint on bank bonuses. We will make an announcement in the next week.

Duncan Hames: I congratulate the Chancellor on extracting a further £800 million from the banks this morning. Will he take this opportunity to rule out any reduction in his permanent bank levy, should it turn out to raise more money than expected?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I thank him on behalf of the Chancellor for his congratulations on the levy. As he recognised, the levy is a permanent feature, not a one-off tax like the previous Government's bank payroll tax. It will raise more than the bank payroll tax did in its year in operation, on a net basis. We are committed to raising the levy from the banks over the life of this Parliament.

Christopher Leslie: It is clear that the partial U-turn on the banking levy happened today purely by coincidence and had nothing to do with Treasury questions. Has the Minister anything else to tell the House? For example, what is he going to do about excessive bonuses? Perhaps we can coax him into another U-turn on the £1 billion corporation tax cut that he is giving the banks. If he wants to announce that at the next Treasury questions, that is fine.

Mark Hoban: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely on top of his brief on this matter. He knows that banks will pay more tax as a consequence of the levy. The tax cuts for the financial sector are far lower than the amount we will raise from the bank levy. This is a permanent measure. The previous Government failed to take action on bank levies and ruled out introducing them on a unilateral basis. This Government have gone ahead and done the right thing for the economy and for the taxpayer.

Government Debt

Angie Bray: What recent estimate he has made of the level of Government debt.

Justine Greening: Public sector net debt doubled in the decade from 2000-01. By the end of last year, it stood at £900 billion. Servicing it costs the taxpayer £120 million every day.

Angie Bray: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As I am sure she is aware, a debt of some £37,000 hangs over the head of every voter in my constituency of Ealing Central and Acton, thanks to the Labour party. Can she reassure us that there will be no deviation from the path, regardless of siren calls, of getting rid of the deficit as soon as possible, so that this country can move forward to prosperity once again?

Justine Greening: Yes, I can, and of course my hon. Friend is not the only person to hold that view. The secretary-general of the OECD said only last week that Britain needed to "stay the course". He realises, as did the Bank of England Governor Mervyn King when he talked about our deficit as being "clearly unsustainable", that if we had not set out a credible plan and got a grip on our public finances to tackle the deficit, we would have run the risk of an even sharper fiscal tightening later down the road, a loss of confidence and higher interest rates in future.

Helen Goodman: It costs £150 to give a person debt advice, and it costs £50,000 to rehouse a family. Will the Economic Secretary explain why Treasury Ministers are cutting the funds to citizens advice bureaux to provide such advice, and why that is a good way to cut the debt?

Justine Greening: We are looking at ways in which we can ensure that people still get the debt advice that they need, and of course a lot of the grants are provided by local authorities. There is no point in Opposition Members talking about debt, because it was their party that created the problem in the first place.

High-technology Manufacturing

George Freeman: What assessment he has made of prospects for growth in the high-technology manufacturing sector.

Justine Greening: The Office for Budget Responsibility sets out the official economic and fiscal forecasts. However, high-tech manufacturing is a key part of our growth plan and we need to ensure that Britain is not just open for business but making things again.

George Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the latest data on manufacturing business confidence? January's purchasing managers indicators show a sharp jump, suggesting annualised growth this year of 2.6%. Intuit, the software survey business, reports that 66% of small and medium-sized enterprise owners say that the VAT rise has no impact on their business, and Investec reports that two thirds of owner-managers plan to hire more staff in 2011. Does that not show that the Government's policy is working and that the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) is out of touch?

Justine Greening: What it shows is that we have the right plan to get our economy back on track. My hon. Friend mentions the purchasing managers index for January, which was at a record high since the series began in 1992. We recognise that our road to recovery will still be choppy, which is one reason why we will bring forward the first phase of the growth review in the Budget that is coming up. That will examine how we can ensure that we create the conditions for our companies to be successful.

Geraint Davies: Does the Economic Secretary agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the new patent box tax, reducing the patent tax from 28% to 10%, does nothing for new jobs or research and development, and that in fact the Pfizer case, with the loss of 2,300 jobs in Sandwich, is a case in point? It shows that she is doing nothing for modern manufacturing and that choking growth and increasing inflation through VAT is increasing the deficit, not decreasing it.

Justine Greening: It is hard not to point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party supported the patent box when it was in government. It is not just that policy that will support high-tech manufacturing. Our policies of reducing corporation tax year on year rather than having it go up, and of reducing national insurance and getting rid of the worst impacts of the jobs tax that was making it harder for companies to keep people employed, will support growth in the economy. His party simply has no idea how to start making that happen.

Private Finance Initiative

Jesse Norman: What his policy is on transparency in private finance initiative contracts.

Danny Alexander: The Government are committed to transparency across all areas of public spending, including PFI contracts. All new central Government PFI contracts will be published, and the Treasury website holds PFI statistics that will be updated at the Budget.

Jesse Norman: I thank the Chief Secretary for that answer. Last week, the Ministry of Defence announced that it had chosen three PFI projects as pilots for a wider renegotiation strategy in order to generate a rebate for taxpayers. I and many other Members have warmly welcomed that news. Is my right hon. Friend planning to encourage other Departments to reopen their own PFI contracts to generate future savings?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the question, and I certainly support the work that the MOD is doing. We are actively encouraging Departments and local authorities to scrutinise their PFI contracts for savings. As my hon. Friend knows, the Treasury has published draft guidance to help contract managers identify PFI savings, and a pilot will test the savings measures in the contracts, which will help to scope out possible savings and ensure that other Departments can make the same progress as the MOD.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the Chief Secretary could look at the House as he addresses us.

Andrew Love: What will the right hon. Gentleman do about the scandal of bunching private finance initiative contracts together and selling them on in the private sector, with no benefit to the public sector? Is he going to take action, and if so, when?

Danny Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman implies, a vast number of PFI contracts were negotiated under the previous Government. If he, in common with any other hon. Members, has examples of low value for money PFI contracts or other concerns, I would be happy to look at them, as I said at the previous Treasury questions. Since then, no hon. Member except my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) has come forward with such examples. I therefore look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love).

Independent Commission on Banking

Steve Rotheram: What recent assessment he has made of the progress of the work of the Independent Commission on Banking.

Mark Hoban: The Government set up the Independent Commission on Banking to consider reforms to the banking sector. We welcome the progress that the commission has made, and look forward to receiving its report in September 2011.

Steve Rotheram: If the banking commission recommends breaking up the big banks, will the Government judge the Vickers report on its own merits, or will they put the value of their shareholding in the nationalised banks first?

Mark Hoban: The commission that has been set up is independent. It is looking at the structure of banking in the UK, and its impact on the wider economy and competition, and we await the outcome of its findings later this year.

Value Added Tax

Iain Wright: What assessment he has made of the effects on consumer confidence of the recent increase in the basic rate of value added tax.

David Gauke: Sustainable public finances will increase consumer confidence in the medium term. The decisive action taken by the Government in the spending review and June Budget, including the increase in VAT, will put the public finances and spending on a sustainable footing.

Iain Wright: Given the increase in VAT and the biggest monthly fall in consumer confidence since 1992, will the Minister update the House with his assessment of job losses in the retail sector?

David Gauke: Unless we get the public finances right, there will be no long-term consumer confidence. Can we imagine what the impact would be if the Government abandoned their approach and just started spending money, like the previous Government did, and failed to tackle the deficit? I am afraid that consumer confidence would go through the floor.

Peter Bone: Is it not right to say that to compensate for the increase in VAT, the Government have increased the personal allowance for taxpayers, so that consumers have more money to spend?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have increased the personal allowance, taking 880,000 people out of income tax, resulting in an income tax cut for millions of people. It is none the less the fact that we must tackle the deficit. To the extent that the Labour party wants to do anything about the deficit, it advocates reducing the deficit by increasing taxes by more. Think what that would do.

Financial Planning

Stephen McCabe: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of support and advice on financial planning and financial literacy for young people and vulnerable groups.

Mark Hoban: The Consumer Financial Education Body, which is soon to be renamed the Money Advice Service, has statutory objectives to improve understanding of financial matters among the general public, and to enhance the ability of members of the public, including young people and vulnerable groups, to manage their financial affairs. CFEB is the independent body that is responsible for measuring the effectiveness of its work.

Stephen McCabe: Given people's reliance on citizens advice bureaux, is the Minister at all worried about the cuts to them, including the closure of all five in Birmingham? How will that help vulnerable people who are seeking reliable financial advice?

Mark Hoban: The Government take the issue of financial advice very seriously. That is why we have supported the establishment of CFEB, which will be funded through a levy raised on the financial services sector, which is very important. It is also important that CFEB takes forward its work and considers how to reach out to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Basel III Framework

Mark Menzies: What recent steps he has taken to implement the Basel III framework; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Hoban: The Government are taking forward work on the implementation of Basel III. The agreement will be implemented on an EU-wide basis through revisions to the capital requirements directive. Legislative proposals known as CRD 4 are expected from the European Commission before the summer. The Commission is working towards the implementation of CRD 4 in member states including the UK on 1 January 2013, with the majority of measures to be phased in by 1 January 2018.

Mark Menzies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's willingness to consider capital control and liquidity reform vastly contrasts with what took place under previous Governments?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, part of the problem was that the light-touch regime introduced by the previous Government for the regulation of the financial services sector meant that, when losses rose, banks did not have sufficient capital to absorb them. The Basel III reforms will tackle that challenge, and I hope that we will see a stronger and more sustainable financial sector.

Topical Questions

Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

George Osborne: The core purposes of the Treasury are to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and employment, reform banking, manage the public finances and generally clear up the mess left by the Labour party.

Andrew Selous: Will the Chancellor update the House on the progress made in making us one nation in pensions, so that people in the private sector do not have to pay for public sector pensions that they can only dream of receiving themselves?

George Osborne: We are seeking a more equitable balance. Lord Hutton is due to produce his final report just before the Budget, and we await that. However, we have already made it clear that we need to see savings for the taxpayer. Those were set out in the spending review, and, as I said, we are committed to them. However, in conversations with trade unions, I have been prepared to enter into discussions with them on an extended time frame-to June-about exactly how those savings can be found across schemes and different pay scales.

Stephen Pound: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be aware of the statement made by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister yesterday. Will he explain the reason for the continued failure to make a decision?

George Osborne: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the request for additional support for the security situation in Northern Ireland. It is a request that I have taken very seriously, and we are interrogating the request properly- [Laughter.] I know that it comes as a complete surprise to Labour Members that the Treasury should actually interrogate spending requests from Departments, but we have decided that there is new management in charge at the Treasury, and that we should start doing that. We will treat the request with due diligence, but I am clear that security comes first. That will be my priority.

Tobias Ellwood: Is my hon. Friend aware of recently passed US legislation-the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act-that obliges oil, gas and mineral extraction companies listed on US stock exchanges to declare how much they pay directly to a Government for the rights to mine those resources? This has a huge impact in Africa in tackling corruption, increasing transparency and stopping the backhanders that end up being given to Heads of State. Would he agree to meet me to see whether we can introduce such legislation here in the UK?

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. Indeed, last week I had a meeting with representatives of leading non-governmental organisations on this matter, and the Government are actively engaged at a European Union level to see how we can progress it. He raises a fair point.

George Mudie: The Chancellor referred to the need for the regulator to have good judgment. Do Ministers think that the same regulator is using good judgment in all aspects of the retail and mortgage reviews?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the continued work load of the Financial Services Authority and its work on financial services. He and I would agree that we want better consumer outcomes from retail financial services, and that means that these areas should be reviewed very carefully. However, I am also certain that the outcome of the mortgage market review should take into account the stability of the housing market.

James Wharton: The 2010 North East Research and Information Partnership annual jobs report shows a net increase in employment in the region of about 1,300 jobs over the past year. What are the Government doing to ensure that the private sector recovery in the regions continues?

Danny Alexander: The Chancellor announced measures in the Budget on corporation tax and national insurance breaks, particularly for companies in the regions. We have set up local enterprise partnerships, which enable local authorities and businesses to work together to promote their own economic interests, and in due course we will announce the first round of decisions on the regional growth fund, which will help to support exactly the sort of initiatives the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

William Bain: Does the Chancellor agree that any credible strategy for growth must include proposals for a fully capitalised, properly independent green investment bank? Will he assure the House that the Treasury has ceased to act as a roadblock to the creation of such a bank?

George Osborne: We are absolutely committed to creating the green investment bank. Indeed, we set aside money in the spending review to achieve that, and we will have an announcement in due course.

Andrew Bingham: As the rising cost of motoring and fuel has such a significant effect on rural constituencies such as mine, can my right hon. Friend update the House on any consideration he is giving to mitigate such problems as part of next month's Budget?

George Osborne: I completely understand the pressure that motorists in my hon. Friend's constituency and others are facing, partly due to the increase in the oil price. We have a proposal, in the Budget introduced by the last Labour Government, for an increase on 1 April. As I have said, we are looking at that. We are also considering the case for a fuel duty stabiliser, and we will have announcements on this, potentially at the Budget.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Chancellor understand the anger that thousands of people in Nottingham feel when they are losing their jobs as a result of his policies, whereas the bankers who caused the credit crisis will be getting huge pay-outs and he has done nothing to stop them?

George Osborne: The reason difficult decisions are being taken is because of the policies of the Labour party. Until the Opposition-and in particular the man who had greater influence over Labour's economic policy than any other-face up to that, they will not be a credible alternative. We are clear that we need to put in place steps to deal with the budget deficit and to ensure that the banks lend more, including in Nottingham, and pay less in bonuses than they did when Labour was in government. We expect to have announcements on that in the next week, but we need also to reform the way we help people who are unemployed, and that is what the Work programme will do.

Adam Holloway: Given the astronomical levels of debt left to families in my constituency, can the Chancellor confirm that the planned cuts for this April that he inherited from Labour were just £2 billion less than those of the Government?

George Osborne: I can indeed confirm that, and this is one of the great paradoxes at the moment. The plan, which the previous Government all appeared to have signed up to, including the shadow Chancellor-that is, the plan put in place by the last Chancellor of the Exchequer-starts in eight weeks' time and involves billions of pounds of cuts, amounting to just £2 billion less than what we are planning this year. We have not had any proposals from the Opposition; they have eight weeks to come up with a plan.

Rachel Reeves: In Leeds we will lose 11 citizens advice bureaux debt advisers next month because of the cancellation of the financial inclusion fund. Where would the Minister suggest that my constituents who are struggling with debt and excessive and escalating charges from doorstep lenders go for advice?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady will be aware that the financial inclusion fund, which was set up by the previous Government, was coming to a close at the end of March. Other sources of debt advice are available. For example, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service is an effective provider of advice, while the Money Advice Trust provides advice over the phone. There are sources of advice out there, but as I said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), the Consumer Finance Education Body, which was set up by the previous Government and which we proposed, will reach out to the most vulnerable people in society to ensure that they get access to high-quality advice.

Gavin Williamson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision by Moog Aircraft, which is based in my constituency, to invest millions of pounds in a new site to replace its old factory, securing 400 jobs in South Staffordshire? After 13 years of Labour's decline in manufacturing, is this not a further sign that we are now seeing a manufacturing recovery?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I join him in congratulating the company on its announcement. Under the last Labour Government the share of the economy taken by manufacturing halved; under this Government we are seeing a manufacturing revival.

Naomi Long: Further to his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), will the Chancellor please confirm for the House that what the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland has actually requested is not additional funding, but simply that the Treasury stands by the negotiated financial agreement that led to the devolution of policing and justice in the first place?

George Osborne: As I said to the hon. Member for Ealing North, we are carefully considering the request. I am clear that security comes first. Of course the Treasury has to apply due diligence to any request from a Department or devolved authority, but she should take it from me that we put security first.

Tim Farron: Our mountain rescue teams are staffed by outstanding volunteers doing professional work, but outrageously they have to pay VAT and vehicle excise duty on life-saving equipment. Is it not time that this Government put an end to this and refunded that VAT?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is quite right to celebrate the work of the mountain rescue teams. Of course they face additional equipment costs, and that is why we allocated funds in the spending review to help to support mountain rescue teams with those costs. The Department concerned, the Department for Transport, will make an announcement on this in due course.

Chuka Umunna: It is extremely important that the Government are seen to act on the recommendations of the Independent Banking Commission, when they come out, in the national interest rather than in the interest of any particular sector. Does the Chancellor think that it is wise for the Minister, the noble Lord Green, an immediate former chair of the British Bankers Association, to sit on the Cabinet Committee that makes decisions on such matters? He joined that Committee last month, just two months after leaving the chairmanship of HSBC, a bank for which he worked for more than 25 years and which will be profoundly affected by the decisions that the Committee makes.

George Osborne: First, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the creation of the Independent Banking Commission. I hope that all hon. Members have an open mind about the recommendations that it will make, and that they agree that we should not close off any options until we have heard from John Vickers. He is doing an excellent job, and we await his final report later this year. The hon. Gentleman is ungenerous in his remarks about Lord Green, who brings enormous experience to the job of Trade Minister. I would just point out that he has replaced Lord Davies, who was appointed by the Labour Government at a time when he was chief executive of Standard Chartered, so it is not as though bringing top bank chiefs into the Government is an innovation.

Andrea Leadsom: In the light of the recent appalling press about Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' problems with PAYE and, now, with national insurance contributions matching, is the Minister as concerned as I am about the imminent introduction of online filing for companies, many of which have said that they simply lack the preparedness to deal with it?

David Gauke: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about online filing. It is the case that one of the providers has been unable to meet the timetable that HMRC set out, although a number of other software providers have been able to do so. We are seeking to ensure that we implement this in a way that is sympathetic to businesses, but we want to stick to the original timetable. Those businesses that have delivered should not be punished because of the failures of another.

Kelvin Hopkins: Manufacturing has undoubtedly been helped a lot by the depreciation of sterling, which took place under the last Labour Government. That was only possible because Labour wisely kept us out of the euro. There is now a possibility that interest rates might rise. Will the Chancellor be putting pressure on the Monetary Policy Committee not to raise interest rates?

George Osborne: The Monetary Policy Committee is independent of this Chancellor-and, indeed, of previous and future Chancellors-and that is how we intend to keep it. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the devaluation of the currency, I would just observe that it is incredibly important that the manufacturing industry makes itself even more competitive, and it could use the devaluation as an opportunity to do that. Some Government policies-on taxation and on employment law, for example-will also help in that regard, but the thrust of his question is right: we should not rely solely on the devaluation to make our manufacturing industry globally competitive.

Douglas Carswell: The Chancellor is entirely right to emphasise the need to be careful with public money. Will he therefore please explain his role in approving the deal to make the UK taxpayer liable for billions of pounds to bail out the euro under the European stabilisation mechanism? Will he respond to my freedom of information request, and publish the advice that he was given on the agreement on assuming office?

George Osborne: First, I will look at my hon. Friend's FOI request, because I have not seen it. The broader point that I would make is that my predecessor as Chancellor, in the weekend between the general election and the creation of the new Government, agreed to the creation of the European stability facility. That involves a UK commitment which takes place on the basis of qualified majority voting; we do not have a veto. I made it clear to the previous Chancellor at the time that I did not support what he had done. However, it has happened and we have to live with the consequences.

Ian Austin: In a speech to the City in 2008, several months after the collapse of Northern Rock, the then Leader of the Opposition-now the Prime Minister-complained that the City had been subjected to too much regulation and to "excessive bureaucratic interventionism". He also said that
	"government needs to do less taxing and regulating".
	Can the Chancellor tell us what he meant?

George Osborne: I am reminded of the speech in the City made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), when he said in 2006:
	"In my first speech as City Minister at Bloomberg in London, I argued that London's success has been based on...light-touch...regulation".
	He also said that he hoped the City would take comfort from the way the Labour Government had responded to new risks and to events. That is the Bloomberg speech that he likes to forget.

David Davis: There is a lot of public disquiet about alleged enormous sweetheart deals done with major public companies-Vodafone and others-in the last five years. Three or four months ago, I tabled a question asking how many of these deals had been done, costing more than £100 million at a time. The answer I received was that the information requested was "not readily available" and could be provided "only at disproportionate cost". I received a similar blocking answer this morning. When is the Minister going to tell the House what HMRC has been up to?

David Gauke: The National Audit Office has investigated and examined that as a matter of course. There is no question of sweetheart deals. The reality is that HMRC is seeking to recover as much tax as is due. That is what it has done in a number of cases. I am not going to comment on individual cases. That is a matter of confidentiality; I do not get to see the details. None the less, I think wild allegations have been made against HMRC, for which there is little or no evidence.

Alison McGovern: I was just checking and realised that the Government's own business planning projections show that the proportion of young people on the dole by the end of this Parliament will be reduced by less than 1%. Will the Chancellor explain what his plan is to increase the number of jobs made available to those young people?

George Osborne: This country has a problem with youth unemployment that has been apparent for a decade. Even in the boom years during the middle part of the last decade, youth unemployment was increasing and a whole generation was being left behind. I hope that we can achieve some kind of cross-party consensus on trying to reform our welfare system so that people do not get trapped in poverty and work always pays. We are reforming the new deal and replacing it with the Work programme so that we are more effective at giving young people the training they need and the opportunities that have been lacking for the last decade.

Stephen Williams: Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), many of us will have seen-and some of us, myself included, will approve of-the demonstrations organised by UK Uncut outside certain high street well-known names. What are the Government doing to tackle corporate tax avoidance schemes by some large corporates; and what is the Chancellor going to do to make sure that the actions of some well-known and popular figures, such as premiership football stars and grand prix drivers, are also tackled?

David Gauke: The fact is that over the spending review period, £900 million is devoted specifically to HMRC for improving the capability of tackling tax avoidance and tax evasion. We take the issue very seriously and we announced proposals in December to reduce the tax gap further.

Russia (Exclusion of Journalist)

Chris Bryant: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the expulsion from Russia this weekend of the journalist for  The Guardian, the Moscow correspondent Mr Luke Harding.

David Lidington: On Saturday 5 February Luke Harding, a British journalist and correspondent on Russia for  The Guardian, was refused entry to Russia at Moscow airport and sent back to the United Kingdom. Mr Harding is a journalist who knows Russia well and has, over the last four years, given readers of  The Guardian genuine insight into that country.
	A free media and freedom of expression are a vital element of any free and democratic society-and the Government deplore any restriction on those freedoms. Mr Harding was not given any explanation for his exclusion and it is unclear to us at this stage whether he has the right of appeal against this decision.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the editor of  The Guardian over the weekend and subsequently to the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, by telephone yesterday. My right hon. Friend asked Foreign Minister Lavrov to explain the reasons behind the decision to decline entry to Mr Harding. Mr Lavrov said that he was not aware of the specific reason, but promised to find out and let us know. We are yet to receive a response, but we understand that the Russians are actively looking into the issue. We have since passed this information to the editor of  The Guardian.
	We understand that Mr Harding had previously been warned by the Russian authorities about several alleged violations of his status as a journalist, including visits without permission to border zones and classified areas. Indeed, last November  The Guardian approached us asking for support to secure Mr Harding's reaccreditation as a journalist when his accreditation had been withdrawn. We then made representations to Moscow at a senior level, and in the event Mr Harding was granted an extension of his accreditation as a journalist.
	We have raised our concerns about media freedom in Russia, most recently during our bilateral human rights dialogue with the Russian Government on 18 January. As the House will know, Foreign Minister Lavrov is due to visit this country next week. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise various issues-including, most certainly, human rights and media freedom-during his discussions with Mr Lavrov. Knowing my right hon. Friend, I am confident that he will have this case very much in mind when he does so.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As he has said, Luke Harding is a thorough, meticulous and courageous journalist-qualities that are essential for anyone working as an independent journalist in today's Russia. His British wife and young children are now stuck in Moscow without him. As the Minister said, when he tried to enter Russia this week he was detained before being put on a plane back to London. I am told that as his passport was handed back to him the Russian police officer told him, "For you, Russia is closed."
	Is this not a pretty chilling state of affairs? Does it not accord with the harassment of the last British ambassador to Moscow, the rigged trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the persecution of journalist Fatima Tlisova, and the murder of her colleague Anna Politkovskaya, with which no one has yet been charged and of which no one has yet been found guilty? Does it not also accord with the revelation that the Russian security service press office which deals with journalists' inquiries has now been given authority to issue licences for the routine bugging and surveillance of all journalists operating in Russia?
	The United Kingdom has vast financial interests in Russia. Will not British businesses be nervous, fearing that this shows a return to the worst practices of the communist era? Will people not think that those who have suggested that Russia is a mafia state or a kleptocracy are not far off the mark?
	What actions has the Foreign Office taken on behalf of Mr Harding and his family? I gather that the Russian Foreign Minister-who, as the Minister said, is expected to visit London next week-maintains that he knows nothing of the circumstances. What further representations will our Government make? Will they make clear that Mr Lavrov is not welcome in this country while British journalists are excluded from Russia? Will they emphasise that, as a member of the Council of Europe, Russia must ensure the freedom of the press within its borders? May I urge all Government Members who are Council of Europe delegates and sit in the same grouping as Russian members of Mr Putin's party to make absolutely clear to them that these actions are completely unacceptable?

David Lidington: We will certainly offer whatever consular support we are able to give to Mr Harding's family. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that events have been moving very rapidly over the past few days. As I said in my original answer, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise both the broader human rights concerns and, as appropriate, the case of Mr Harding-and, indeed, other individual cases-during his discussions with Mr Lavrov when they meet next week.
	I think it important for the United Kingdom to continue to talk to Russia. Russia is a significant power in the world in both an economic and political and a military context. There will be issues, relating to counter-terrorism and nuclear proliferation, on which we want to find a certain amount of common cause with Russia, but it is also important-and the hon. Gentleman was right to stress this-that we are unafraid to raise very clearly in our discussions with Russian Ministers and officials issues on which we disagree, and disagree strongly.
	While the British Government will continue to support British business in its work around the world, we also make clear to Russia and, indeed, other countries that if they seek to attract international investment in their economies, it is in their interests to be able to demonstrate that they are governed by the rule of law which respects fundamental human rights, including the freedom of the media.

John Whittingdale: I endorse the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that we in this House have always recognised that, although freedom of the press is sometimes uncomfortable, it is absolutely vital to a free society? Does he also agree that the treatment of Luke Harding is a matter of some concern, but that it is of even greater concern that half a dozen or more journalists have been killed or have disappeared in Russia in the past few years? Will he make absolutely sure that those coming to this country from Russia are left in no doubt as to how seriously we regard that?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes good and sensible points. We consistently raise both individual cases and the broader issues to which he rightly ascribes importance with Russian visitors to the United Kingdom, but they are also raised by British Ministers and officials when visiting Russia, and we will continue that practice.

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for tabling this urgent question. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will be extremely concerned about the detention and then the expulsion from Russia of Luke Harding. Freedom of the press should be one of the cornerstones of a modern democratic country. Therefore, this incident can only reflect badly on the Russian Government, especially as it is, unfortunately, not an isolated instance of the negation of press freedom. It is, indeed, of great concern that such a respected and highly regarded journalist as Mr Harding should be treated in such a way.
	I am glad that the Government share the Opposition's concern about what is happening in Russia, and I urge the Government to continue to make urgent and vigorous representations to the Russian Government. I also urge the Government to ask for specific reassurances regarding British journalists. Moreover, can the Minister urge the Prime Minister to raise the case of Mr Harding when he visits Russia later this year?

David Lidington: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will raise human rights issues when he talks to Russian leaders, whether during his visit to Moscow that we hope will take place later this year, or at the margins of other international gatherings where he might meet members of the Russian leadership. It is very much in the interests of the Russian Government that they start to demonstrate that they respect international norms on human rights and media freedoms, not least because Russia itself has signed up to the various European and international conventions that embody those principles.

Mark Pritchard: Notwithstanding the damage this incident does to Russia's international image, does my right hon. Friend agree that, at a time when the Russian Government are seeking support for their membership of the World Trade Organisation, their not abiding by international norms does not advance their case?

David Lidington: One of the strongest arguments for wishing to see Russia accede to the WTO is that it would bring Russia into a rules-based organisation governing world trade. I think-I hope-that the Russian authorities will reflect on the impact decisions such as that over Mr Harding and those over many other individual cases will have on how they are seen by countries around the world and international organisations with which they wish to develop stronger relationships.

Paul Flynn: It is certainly true that Russia has become more oppressive and that it does not respect the agreements that it has signed. Would it not be a great shame if the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, which are the main protectors of freedom in Russia and many other countries in Europe, were undermined this week by attacks in this House? Should the right hon. Gentleman not urge his hon. Friends to make sure that the valuable work of the ECHR continues?

David Lidington: I will not be drawn into what the House might be debating later this week, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point when he says that, alongside those decisions of the ECHR with which we might strongly disagree, we must weigh in the scales its decisions, as in the case of Russia, to uphold firmly basic human rights and personal and media freedoms, and its severe criticism of the Russian authorities for their failure to do so.

Jo Swinson: Luke Harding's expulsion is an extremely concerning development amid the complete lack of media freedom in Russia. It comes on the heels of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and the violent attack on Oleg Kashin in November, and shows the real danger in which both foreign and local journalists operate in Russia, which makes a mockery of Russia's membership of the Council of Europe. Even if the Russians refuse to see why, morally or liberally, this is totally unacceptable, can they at least be persuaded that it is hugely damaging to their own interests because of is impact on foreign trade, investment and their place in the world?

David Lidington: I agree completely with that last point. We will certainly continue to raise with the Russians the individual cases and general issues that the hon. Lady cited, as we did during the human rights dialogue that took place last month in London. We will also continue to give support to a number of both Russian and international non-governmental organisations that seek to monitor alleged human rights abuses and uphold basic freedoms, especially in the north Caucasus.

David Winnick: In November 1992, I heard the then Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, tell the assembled Commons and Lords that there would be no return to the old ways in his country. Is it not unfortunate that, increasingly, Russia is returning to autocratic ways? It would be a great blow not only to the Russian people but to the international community if the worst aspects of tsarism and communism were to return to that country.

David Lidington: When I look at Russian history what strikes me is how much the Russian people have suffered over the past century. I would dearly love to see Russia playing its full part as a member of the community of nations, including by showing respect for human rights and freedoms. The Government have always welcomed the statements, particularly from President Medvedev, arguing that Russia is moving towards greater acceptance of the rule of law and he is seeking to demonstrate greater respect for liberties in his country. It is important that the Russian authorities realise that we cannot make a judgment on the basis of words alone and that we look at their actions in judging whether those welcome expressions of intent are translated into practical action.

Robert Halfon: Given the horrific events that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has just described, does the Minister agree that Russia is rapidly becoming a rogue state? What can our Government do proactively to help reformers and democrats in Russia properly?

David Lidington: We can help by speaking out about our concerns, both in public and candidly in private to Russian leaders and officials. We can do so both bilaterally and through multilateral organisations, especially the European Union, and we welcome the statement that Baroness Ashton published last November on this matter. We can also continue to help by supporting NGOs that focus on the situation in Russia, be they Russian or international. However, I ask my hon. Friend to accept that on a number of important issues at the United Nations Security Council it has been possible to achieve a measure of constructive agreement with Russia. We would welcome things such as its agreement to tougher sanctions against Iran-that was agreed last year. We very much welcomed the successor to the START-strategic arms reduction treaty-agreement that was negotiated between the Governments of Russia and the United States. We want to see more of that kind of development in the world.

Points of Order

Angus Robertson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Brian H Donohoe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wish to accommodate both hon. Members.

Angus Robertson: This morning, the Government issued a written statement on the ditching of the privatisation of search and rescue contracts. That written statement provided no answers about the multi-million pound cost to the taxpayer of pursuing that madcap privatisation scheme in the first place. No details were provided about what that will mean for military aircrew who should be remaining on search and rescue flights. No confirmation was given on what should happen to military facilities that operate those search and rescue flights, such as RAF Lossiemouth in Moray or HMS Gannet in Ayrshire. How would it be possible to get a full statement in the House, so that hon. Members who have a constituency or other interest can question Ministers on what is, after all, a lifeline public service?

Brian H Donohoe: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will take the point of order from the hon. Gentleman and then reply to both hon. Members.

Brian H Donohoe: My concern is similar to that of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). That statement should have been made in this place and not on the airwaves, which is what happened. Despite having a constituency interest in the subject, I was given no notice of the statement in the House of Commons Library. Nobody informed me that it had been put there, and I had to seek it out myself, which I find outrageous. It is time that the Government got themselves into check in order that this place remains sovereign-rather than the airwaves of this country.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) for their points of order. The timing, form and content of ministerial statements are, as both hon. Members will appreciate, a matter for the Government and not for the Chair. I note what both of them have said about what they regard as the inadequacy of the handling of the matter. Their opinion has been placed firmly on the record.
	I say two things in conclusion to them. First, the Leader of the House is present. He will have heard what they have said-he is entitled to respond, but he is under no obligation to do so this afternoon.  [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman is well able to fend for himself. Secondly, both hon. Members are at liberty and might be wise to approach the Table Office to decide what options are available to them to pursue this very legitimate concern on behalf of their constituents.
	If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has been waiting patiently. Just before he graces the House with his eloquence, I appeal to hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber-I am sure that there will not be very many-to do so quickly and quietly so that we may hear him.

BBC Licence Fee Payers (Voting Rights)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No.  23 )

Robert Halfon: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the BBC to enable licence fee payers to vote on its strategic direction and aspects of senior salaries and programming, including referenda on particular issues; to provide for election of the BBC Trust and the non-executive members of the BBC Executive Board by licence fee payers; to make other provision relating to the governance of the BBC; and for connected purposes.
	I welcome the chance to present this ten-minute rule Bill today on democratising the licence fee. I believe that this measure will enhance the BBC rather than weaken it. Like many of our countrymen, I believe that the BBC is a great British institution. It has an umbilical cord to the British people. If it did not exist, we might even have to invent it.
	On the question of impartiality, I have issues, which I will raise later in my remarks. Nevertheless, when respected journalists such as Peter Sissons suggest that the BBC has an institutional left-wing bias, ironically in some ways it is good for people like me and other Conservatives. It means that we cannot brook complacency, and that we have to be that much better than the centre-left in presenting our case. When it comes to BBC impartiality, I am reminded of the old maxim of Shimon Peres, who described the BBC World Service as
	"making dictatorship untenable, and democracy unbearable".
	It is nevertheless worth having.
	I listen regularly to BBC radio, including the World Service, which is central to spreading liberal democracy around the world. However, despite the BBC's positive attributes, of which there are many, it has fundamental flaws. That is why I am raising this matter today. I have been campaigning for the democratisation of the licence fee for a long time, raising it with the Culture Secretary and tabling several early-day motions. I sometimes feel like the man on the Clapham bus.
	Let me outline the problems as I perceive them. First, the BBC is monopolistic, with about a third of TV viewing and half of radio. Monopolies tend to concentrate power in the hands of a few executives and to take power away from ordinary people and customers, which is something we should worry about. Secondly, the BBC is often branded as anti-competitive because it does not have to make a commercial return on its products. One example of that was BBC jam, an online education service that in 2007 was crowding out other education businesses such as Pearson UK in my constituency. In the end, it was rightly withdrawn from service.
	Thirdly, the licence fee is a mediaeval anachronism. It is similar to our voting system in the UK before the Reform Acts of the 19th and 20th centuries in that it is taxation without representation and means disfranchisement. We are right not to tolerate that in our politics and we should not tolerate it in our public media either. This point is crucial. If one wants to watch television, which is a basic hope these days, one must buy a licence. The licence fee does not pay for universal infrastructure but is all spent on the BBC. Like all taxes, the licence fee is a coercive system that is backed by the threat of fines and prison, but what if we do not like decisions taken by the BBC Trust and its director-general? Some might feel that the licence fee is a regressive tax which penalises those on low incomes. Others will be upset by the salaries of senior BBC executives and celebrities. Many were angered at the BBC's assault on the late Norris McWhirter, a war hero and founder of the Freedom Association.
	The reality is that licence fee payers want choice. Some might want a beefed-up World Service, paid for by reducing expense elsewhere-perhaps by cutting the £50,000 a day that the BBC spends on taxis, or by abandoning the hugely expensive and unwanted move to Salford. Some might want more spent on Radio 3 or Radio 1. Although licence fee payers will welcome the freeze in the fee that the Government have negotiated, much more needs to be done. If we had choice, we might choose a BBC with twice as many news journalists as broadcasters, paid for by reducing celebrity salaries, but at the moment we are powerless, because the BBC is run like a feudal monarchy. As licence fee payers, we are compelled to pay our dues, and if we do not like that, our only choice is to abandon TV altogether. What recourse do we have? Where is the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority or level playing field on freedom of information for the BBC?
	There is a statutory requirement for the BBC to consult its licence fee payers, but everyone knows that many of the current so-called consultations are a sham, with most decisions having been made well in advance. When he was running for the leadership of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) called, in a variant of my idea, for the BBC to become some sort of co-operative. I have no objection to that in principle, but the best way to ensure real democratic control of the BBC is to allow licence fee payers, at individual level, to make key decisions. We must give them the chance to sack grandees if they have grown out of touch with public opinion. Under such a system, licence fee payers would be free to elect the board and chairman of the BBC, agree the annual report and have some say over programme making and the payment of celebrity salaries. It would be similar to shareholders having the ability to hire and fire their board, but with one main difference-every licence fee payer would hold just one share and one vote. Licence fee payers would vote via the internet with a special PIN, keeping administration costs low. The BBC could even call a special referendum for controversial issues, such as whether to allow extremists such as the British National party to appear on "Question Time". Senior BBC members and outside candidates could compete in primaries against each other. We could spark a genuine debate-a battle of ideas-about the kind of BBC that we want, and how it should spend our money.
	To those who say that democracy results only in the lowest common denominator, I say that is untrue. Look at Classic FM and Sky News. There is a real demand out there for quality, and I have a great faith in the British people. The BBC cannot continue-dare I say it-to be a kleptocracy, indifferent to the public who pay for it. Auntie pays out huge salaries to executives and celebrities alike. Her bureaucracy grows exponentially. Her undemocratic licence fee has become an anachronism in the days of multi-channel satellite television. If the BBC really does depend on the licence fee for its survival, then there must be some genuine checks and balances. What better way than democratising the licence fee?
	 Question put and agreed  to .
	 Ordered ,
	That Robert Halfon, Nick de Bois, Craig Whittaker, Pauline Latham, David Tredinnick, Priti Patel, Mr James Clappison, Mr Lee Scott, Mr David Nuttall, Laura Sandys, Simon Hart and Nadhim Zahawi present the Bill.
	Robert Halfon accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November and to be printed (Bill 142).

Education Bill

[Relevant documents: First R eport from the Education Committee, Behaviour and Discipline in Schools, HC516- I .
	 Uncorrected transcript of evidence taken before the Education Committee on 2 February 2011, on the Annual  Report of the Chief Schools Adjudicator 2010, HC 782- i .]
	 Second  Reading

Michael Gove: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	What a pleasure it is to appear before you, Mr Speaker, for the third time within 24 hours.
	The Bill is a response to three specific challenges that our country faces in this the second decade of the 21st century-the challenge of how to respond to an economic crisis, the challenge of how to respond to the scandal of declining social mobility, and the challenge of how to respond to our educational decline, relative to competitor nations.
	We on the Government Benches, both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, believe that it is only by radically and fundamentally reforming our education system and learning the lessons of the highest performing nations that we can generate the long-term economic growth on which prosperity depends and that we can produce the level of social justice that is appropriate for a modern liberal democracy. I hope that across the House tonight we can develop consensus on the need for fundamental reform.
	It was striking that just five years ago across the Dispatch Boxes in the House there was consensus between those on the two Front Benches on the fundamental need for education reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) and the then right hon. Member for Sedgefield both recognised the fundamental need for reform. I hope that we can see the same consensus across the Front Benches tonight. If not, that will tell us something about the state of the Labour party in the second decade of the 21st century.
	What about the state of the economy that the Labour party bequeathed the coalition Government-the state of the mess that we have to clear up? It is against that backdrop that we need to appreciate the fundamental need for educational reform. It is only by having a well-educated, capable and highly skilled work force that we can deal with the economic crisis generated by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. We had a structural deficit for seven years before the banking crisis began. When we entered that period of unprecedented global turbulence, our economy had been undermined by the actions of the previous Government.  [ Interruption. ] I know that Opposition Members find that difficult and that it is painful to be reminded of the desperate position in which they left the country, but the need for urgent reform is underlined by the terrible mess they made- [ Interruption. ] No matter how much they chunter, object or interject from a sedentary position, these are truths that they and the country have to face. They cannot run away from that fact.
	When the OECD graded this country in 2000, we had the best fiscal position in the G7, but in 2007 we had the worst fiscal position, and that was before the banking crisis. By 2010, we had the largest deficit of any G20 country, and today we are paying £120 million a day in debt interest. Manufacturing output fell by 9% as a share of the economy in Labour's years and we lost 1.7 million manufacturing jobs. According to the World Economic Forum's ranking of global competitiveness, we moved from fourth to 86th. No country can succeed economically or respond to an economic crisis unless it ensures that its education system is fit for purpose, and under the previous Government it was not.

Edward Leigh: Can we get back to education? The previous Labour Government tried in their last Bill to bring in compulsory sex education. The Bill before us is an excellent Education Bill, which I fully support, because it is all about devolving power to schools. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will resist any amendments on Report that would bring in compulsory sex education for primary schools?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for, as ever, leaping straight on to sex-I know that it is a subject of great interest to him and to many in this House. I always feel that one should discuss money before discussing sex, because the one and the other are so intimately connected in the minds of so many Members. That is why I was so anxious to ascertain whether Opposition Members were proud of the economic record they bequeathed. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that I will not accept amendments in Committee that seek to make the curriculum any more prescriptive or intrusive. The Bill will enhance professional freedom and autonomy, because we recognise that it is only by doing that we can ensure that our economy and education system are fit for the 21st century. It is not only the economy that was undermined by what happened on Labour's watch; social mobility also worsened.

Geraint Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Michael Gove: In due course.
	Inequality worsened under Labour and the education system exacerbated it. If we look at the gap between children eligible for free school meals and their more fortunate and privileged counterparts, we can see that as those children moved through the education system and progressed under Labour the gap between rich and poor widened.

Andy Burnham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Michael Gove: In due course.
	At age seven, the gap in reading scores between those children who were eligible for free school meals and those who were not was 16 points. At age 11, the gap was 21 points in English and maths. At age 16, the gap was 28 points at GCSE, and only 30% of children eligible for free school meals got five good GCSEs including English and maths. In 2009, only 4% of children eligible for free school meals even sat a chemistry or physics GCSE, and in 2008 40% of those children did not get even a single C in any GCSE.
	At A-level the situation is worse still, with the gap between private schools and state schools doubling under Labour: in 1997 only 12% more privately educated students got three As at A-level than their state school counterparts, but by 2010 that figure was 24%. In 2008, no child in Hackney, Newham, Sandwell, Knowsley or Lambeth got three As at A-level including maths and further maths. Only 53 children eligible for free school meals, from an entire cohort of 75,000, even sat further maths A-level.
	The number of children eligible for free school meals who made it into Oxbridge under Labour fell. In the last but one year for which we have figures, the number was 45; in the last year for which we have figures, it was 40. No wonder the Sutton Trust found that children's levels of achievement are more closely linked to their parents' background in England than in any other developed nation. The truth is that, under 13 years of Labour rule, this country became the sick man of Europe in terms of social mobility. Opportunity was capped, aspiration was depressed and, as a result, the life chances of the most vulnerable were failed by the former Ministers who now sit on the Opposition Benches.

Bill Esterson: I want to bring the Secretary of State back to his comments on the economy. Up until 2008, the Conservatives were committed to sticking to Labour's spending plans. In 2007, the current Chancellor wrote an article in  The Times entitled, "Tories cutting services? That's a pack of lies", in which he made it clear that they were committed to Labour's spending totals at the time. Why is the Education Secretary pushing through these cuts now? Why the change of heart? Did he not agree with those comments at the time?

Michael Gove: I know that there is a worry throughout the country about libraries, but I see that the hon. Gentleman clearly spent quite a lot of time in the cuttings library of the House given the faithful way in which he read out that handout. It was on the watch of the Government whom he supported that we moved from having the best fiscal position in the G7 to the worst. My right hon. Friend was not in charge of the economy then; the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and borrowing money hand over fist. If the hon. Gentleman shares my anger and rage at how his constituents were let down by a debt and deficit mountain that is holding the next generation back and if he is angry about that intergenerational theft, he knows where to point the finger: at the robbers on the Opposition Front Bench.

Andy Burnham: I am not entirely sure that that was parliamentary language, again, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might consider that while I make this intervention.
	We know the right hon. Gentleman likes history, but is he not guilty of rewriting it? On the plans that I made as Chief Secretary, his leader called them "tough" at the time, but let me put this point to him, because he has not given us the true picture on social mobility. Is it not the case that, between 2005 and 2007, the number of children on free school meals who went to university increased by 18%, against a 9% increase among the rest of the population?

Michael Gove: The total increase as a proportion of the cohort was actually less than 1%, because it was a remarkably low base. The right hon. Gentleman cites a selective statistic, because he chooses only two years from Labour's record. It is interesting that he chooses only those two years, because, when we look at the broad spectrum of statistics, we see that he cannot gainsay any of them.
	If the right hon. Gentleman wants more statistics, why does he not look at the OECD programme for international student assessment-PISA-statistics? He quoted them yesterday, and they tell us what happened on Labour's watch to every child's education. We know that the poorest were worst off, but the other set of statistics that he invoked yesterday demonstrates that, actually, all our children were failed by Labour. We moved from fourth to 14th in the world rankings for science, seventh to 17th in literacy and eighth to 24th in mathematics by 2007.

David Blunkett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Gove: Not yet. I shall be delighted to give way in just a second.
	By 2010, we had moved from fourth to 16th, from seventh to 25th and from eighth to 28th in those subjects. In mathematics, 15-year-olds in Shanghai are more than two years ahead of 15-year-olds here. The OECD found that, in this country, the number of 15-year-olds who can generalise and creatively use information based on their own investigations and the modelling of complex problem situations is just 1.8%; in Shanghai, it is 25%-more than 10 times better.

John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Michael Gove: In a second.
	The only way in which we will generate sustainable economic growth is by reforming our education system so that we can keep pace with our competitors. How can a country that is now 28th in the world for mathematics expect to be the home of the Microsofts, the Googles and the Facebooks of the future? The only way in which we can hope to compete effectively is not just by educating a minority to a high level, but by utilising the innate talent of every child, and that is what the measures in this Education Bill will do.

David Blunkett: Of course it is true that many countries throughout the world are investing in and driving forward their educational standards in a commendable way. However, the PISA study to which the Secretary of State referred and the changes in tables that he described are affected substantially-are they not?-by the fact that the number of countries taking part doubled, so he was not comparing like with like.

Michael Gove: I absolutely was comparing like with like, because the whole point about these tables is that they show us how we are doing relative to our competitors. Much as I admire the right hon. Gentleman, and much as I am grateful to him for embarking on a course of reform which, sadly, was thwarted subsequently, I have to acknowledge, as does he, that the statistics produced by the OECD are ungainsayable. I would love to be able to celebrate a greater level of achievement, but I am afraid that this is the dreadful inheritance that our children face as a result of the Government whom he latterly supported from the Back Benches.

John Redwood: The Secretary of State is making a powerful case. If a free school gets a grant to buy land and buildings from a council or other public sector body, will that be classed as a windfall receipt for that council or will there be some adjustment to its capital regime so that it is not a winner from it and we control public spending? That is a live issue, and I would like to know what the position is.

Michael Gove: I appreciate that it is a live issue. One of the striking things about how the free schools programme is proceeding is that we are discovering that in some cases local authorities are happy to buy the sites themselves, as was the case in Wandsworth, and in other cases they are happy to lease them for a peppercorn rent. In specific situations where a site is purchased from a local authority, of course we will seek to ensure that the best deal possible is secured for the taxpayer and for the school and the pupils who will be attending it.

Andy Slaughter: As the Secretary of State always has the figures at his fingertips, can he say how much the Department for Education is giving to West London free school to purchase the Palingswick House site in Hammersmith? The school was going to get a capital receipt of £8 million to develop the site for residential accommodation after it had evicted local charities from it. How much is the DFE going to pay for the site via West London free school?

Michael Gove: The full details will be disclosed when the funding agreement is signed, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the amount that the DFE is investing in this four-form entry school will be significantly less than the £35 million that had to be invested under the previous Government to secure a school of a similar size. I hope that he will join me in welcoming the fact that there will be at least three free schools in his constituency helping to provide superb education for the children whom he has represented so passionately over the years.
	We must all recognise that the reforms that we are talking about, including the creation of new free schools, are the sorts of reforms that we are seeing across the developed world. Ministers such as Arne Duncan and John Key in New Zealand and Julia Gillard in Australia, and countries such as Sweden, Singapore, Finland, Hong Kong, Alberta and South Korea all recognise the need to reform their education systems, and we cannot afford to be left behind. That is why this Bill includes measures to allow us to invest in the early years, improve discipline, remove bureaucracy, and raise standards for all children, with new powers to intervene directly to tackle failure. Above all, it generates more good school places for all children, especially the very poorest.
	There is a key test for Labour Members tonight: will they vote against these measures? Will they vote against improvements in discipline? Will they vote against reductions in bureaucracy? Will they vote against powers to intervene early when schools are failing? Will they vote against additional cash for disadvantaged two-year-olds? Will they prove themselves to be old Labour populists or new Labour modernisers?

Helen Jones: rose -

Michael Gove: I will be very interested to hear the hon. Lady's view.

Helen Jones: I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell the House why he believes that having unqualified teachers can raise educational standards. Why does he think that teaching is different from any other profession in that people who are totally untrained and unqualified should be allowed into it? He would not do it for a doctor or an engineer-why is teaching different?

Michael Gove: As I am sure that the hon. Lady knows, one does not need any training or qualification to be a Member of Parliament-or, indeed, a Labour Government Minister. Mind you, looking at the record of those who have occupied that position, I am prompted to ask a variety of questions. I should point out, of course, that many of the highest performing schools in this country-in fact, some of the highest performing schools in the world-are the fee-paying independent schools, which have earned this country so much foreign currency and have ensured that we continue to have beacons of educational excellence in the fee-paying and state sectors alike. Such schools draw in and welcome a wide variety of highly trained individuals, some of whom do not have qualified teacher status. It is important that we continue to innovate and to learn from the fee-paying independent sector. We must also continue, as we are doing, to invest in high-quality training for all teachers. That is why we are reforming initial teacher training, investing in Teach First, and setting up a new generation of training schools for teachers to develop the best practice from higher education institutions and elsewhere.

Andrew Percy: I had to come in after the last interesting intervention. Is it not the case that more young people than ever are now taught by unqualified staff, precisely because of the changes rightly brought about by the previous Government, including giving higher-level teaching assistants far more ability in the classroom and bringing instructors into schools to fill gaps caused by staffing problems? The issue of unqualified staff coming into our schools is not new.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend, as a former teacher, always adds to our debates with his experience and authority. He is right that some of the work force changes made by the previous Government mean that a number of children are taught by cover supervisors or teaching assistants. We all want to ensure that everyone who is teaching and who is in the classroom is trained to the highest possible level.

Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that one problem, if we are honest, is that for too long many of us have accepted bad teachers? To get rid of a teacher has been almost unthinkable. The question is not really about unqualified teachers, but about teachers who are not doing the job of raising standards properly.

Michael Gove: As so often, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. One problem in the education system is that we need to make it easier for good heads to tackle underperformance by encouraging staff to do the professional development that they need to improve. If they do not improve, they should move on. No one benefits when poor teachers are in the classroom. It not only places an additional burden on hard-working and talented staff, but denies children the chance that they need.

Graham Stuart: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Michael Gove: I am delighted to give way to the Select Committee Chairman.

Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State plans to keep a register of teachers who are barred from teaching. Will he confirm that schools will be able to refer someone who is sacked for gross misconduct to the Secretary of State to be put on the register, but not someone who is fired for incompetence? If that is the case, will he explain the reasoning behind it?

Michael Gove: I am delighted to confirm that. We want to ensure that people who are barred for gross misconduct are kept on a central list, which is updated continually. As my hon. Friend and I know, the General Teaching Council, which was responsible for dismissing and barring incompetent teachers, succeeded in barring only 14 teachers over the 10 years that it was in existence. We need to ensure that at school level, head teachers have the power to dismiss those whom they consider to be inappropriate. We must ensure that head teachers who are doing a fantastic job and are generating improved results have freedom and flexibility over the staff that are required to carry on doing that great work.

Graham Stuart: I agree with the Secretary of State that the previous system was not working effectively. However, that is no reason to believe that we should not have a system that ensures that an incompetent teacher who is removed and sacked-we know how difficult that is, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) just said-does not reappear in another school. That will happen if the Secretary of State does not put that person's name on a register. I ask him to reconsider this issue.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and we will have an opportunity to consider it in Committee. The phenomenon that he refers to is known in the United States as "the dance of the lemons", whereby teachers who are not up to the job are removed from it and reappear in another educational setting. We have explored with a variety of professional bodies the best way of ensuring that that cannot happen. There is no consensus that a central list of the kind he mentions is the answer. I am happy to discuss with him, in Committee and elsewhere, how we can ensure that teachers who are not effective do not continue in the classroom.
	I mentioned that there are six principal areas in the Bill. The first is investment in the early years. It is critical that Opposition Members appreciate that if they vote against the Bill tonight, they will be voting against additional funding to guarantee 15 hours of learning for all disadvantaged two-year-olds. Under Labour, 20,000 of the poorest two-year-olds would have received 15 hours of free learning. Now, under the coalition Government's proposals, 120,000 two-year-olds will be able to have the best possible free learning. Because of that investment, we will be able to ensure that those children are school-ready when they arrive at primary school. We can ensure that when we have in place the literacy check at the end of year 1 that we intend to impose, those children will have a grasp of the basic skills required to make the most of their time at primary school.

Bill Esterson: The Secretary of State makes a very important point about children being school-ready. That need has been expressed to me by children's centre staff and the parents who use those centres, and he will know of the concern that I have previously expressed about the review of children's centres in Sefton. Will he comment on the good practice that already exists in Sure Start children's centres and in early-years provision generally, and on the importance of protecting good practice there and elsewhere rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Michael Gove: I think throwing out the baby with the bathwater would be very poor practice in any Sure Start children's centre or any other early years setting.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Sure Start children's centres can do a fantastic job, which is one reason why we are providing additional support, why the Department of Health is investing in additional health visitors and why the early intervention grant will ensure that there is sufficient money for local authorities to continue to discharge their statutory responsibility.

Andy Slaughter: rose-

Glenda Jackson: rose -

Michael Gove: I will be happy to give way in due course, but I want to make a little progress. It is important that I move on to one of the central parts of the Bill, on which I am genuinely worried that the Labour party may be about to put itself on the wrong side of the argument.
	If Labour Members vote against the Bill tonight, they will also be voting against the measures that teachers and teaching unions want in order to ensure that teachers are safe in the classroom. We know that the biggest reason why professionals leave teaching, and the biggest barrier to talented graduates entering teaching, is the quality of behaviour and discipline in our classrooms. We know that every day, there are 1,000 exclusions for abuse and assault and that last year, 44 staff were assaulted so severely that they had to be taken to hospital as a result of violence in our schools. We know that two thirds of teachers surveyed say that poor behaviour is driving people out of the classroom.
	I believe that the time is now right for the House to send an unambiguous signal to the professionals who work so hard on our behalf in the nation's classrooms that we back them, and that we will give them the tools they need to keep order. We will ensure that they have the power to search students for items that may cause violence or disorder in the classroom. We believe that it should be easier for teachers to detain pupils who are guilty of disruptive behaviour, and that the authority of head teachers should not be undermined by exclusion decisions being overturned, allowing excluded pupils, many of whom might have been guilty of violent offences, to march back into the classroom. We also believe that teachers deserve the right to enjoy anonymity up until the moment when they are charged with any offence that occurs in school. We believe that those four basic protections are no less than our professionals deserve.

Kevin Brennan: rose -

Michael Gove: I would be very interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees, or whether he intends to vote against those protections.

Kevin Brennan: I believe that the Secretary of State will find that there is a good deal of consensus about behaviour issues in Committee. I understand why he wants to portray a vote against the Bill on Second Reading as a vote against every part of it-that is a politically convenient thing to do. If that is his position, however, surely a vote in favour of the Bill is a vote in favour of every part of it. Is he therefore saying to his Liberal Democrat colleagues that if they vote in favour of the Bill on Second Reading, even if they voted against the changes to tuition fees in the autumn, they now support the tuition fee changes and the interest rate increase contained in the Bill?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point and for his personal support on discipline. I know that when he was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, he did good work in that area. However, I have to let him know that if he votes against the Bill on Second Reading, he will be voting against the measures that I have described. If he believes that those measures are worth while but has problems with other aspects of the Bill, he is perfectly at liberty to seek to amend parts of it in Committee. We are very fortunate that we will have in Committee, in the person of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), one of the most reasonable Members of the House. As I said earlier, we will be happy to work in a consensual fashion when the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members make cases to improve the Bill. I am sure that the Bill can be improved, but it should not be opposed or thwarted for narrow political reasons by politicians who are not prepared to stand with our professionals and say, "You're doing a fantastic job and you should be defended. Discipline and behaviour are the foundation stones of good learning, and we will ensure that you are backed with one voice by a committed House."

Glenda Jackson: Has the fact that the Secretary of State stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and argued that we need unqualified teachers in our classrooms passed from his memory? That did not seem to be a message of endorsement for our teachers.
	Not only in my constituency, which is served by two boroughs, but throughout the country, Sure Start and children's centres will close, and there is no protection for them. They are important because they prepare children for primary school, but the situation is further exacerbated by the fact that nothing in the Bill will create more of the desperately needed primary school places in both boroughs in my constituency.

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is passionate, and I do not doubt her commitment-

Glenda Jackson: Don't patronise me-just answer the question!

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady has won an Oscar for being successfully patronising to others. It is a pleasure to be patronised by the Virgin Queen-I feel rather like the French ambassador. I hope this requires no translation: the Bill includes provision for improved primary education and for extra investment in the early years, which is why I hope she will put aside the histrionics and give us her support.

Simon Hughes: As the Secretary of State knows from the conversations that he has had with colleagues and with me, we do not believe, as I assume he does not believe, that the Bill is perfect. However, we are absolutely ready to work collaboratively to get the best Bill on the statute book. That is how I understand we do legislation. I hope he confirms that that is how he intends to do this piece of legislation too.

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman is typically astute. The Bill is the best that I can make it. I am sure that it is not perfect-we have a Committee stage so that the right hon. Gentleman and others can propose amendments, which I hope happens in a suitably constructive spirit. However, we cannot move to that stage and ensure that we have proper legislation, and we cannot protect teachers from indiscipline and poor behaviour or invest in the early years, unless the Bill receives the support of the House tonight. That is the challenge for Opposition Members.

Julie Hilling: rose -

Michael Gove: I shall try to make a little progress.
	There is a related challenge. Do hon. Members want to remove bureaucracy? Do we want to lift the burden of duties that our teachers and head teachers currently have to shoulder? Do we want to ensure that a number of non-departmental public bodies-quangos, in plain phrases-are allowed to continue to exist and to drain resources from the front line, or do we want to see every penny that the taxpayer gives to the Exchequer for their children's education sent into the classroom? Do we want to keep the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the General Teaching Council, the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, Becta and the Children's Workforce Development Council in their current forms, or do we want the money that is spent on them spent on our teachers?
	Let us take the QCDA-just one of those organisations -which has 393 employees. Can any Member of the House tell me how many of those work in the QCDA communications department?  [ Interruption. ] There are a variety of guesses, but not even the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), can tell me. The answer is 76 of the 393. How can it possibly be an effective use of public money to have 76 people involved in communications at a curriculum quango, when that quango has been responsible for a secondary curriculum that mentions not a single figure in world history apart from William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano? How can it be right that we have spent money-so much money-on that curriculum authority, when its geography curriculum mentions not a single country other than the UK, and not a single river, ocean, mountain or city, but finds time to mention the European Union? How can it be right that we can find money to employ 76 people in communications-76 spin doctors-when our music curriculum does not mention a single composer, a single musician, a single conductor or a single piece of music? How can any hon. Member justify this unreformed status quo? The Bill gives every Member the chance to vote not just for money going into the classroom but for a reformed, 21st-century curriculum.
	We will also remove bureaucracy by tackling Ofsted. I am delighted to inform the House that Ofsted has a new chair, Baroness Morgan of Huyton-formerly Sally Morgan and political secretary to Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister. I am delighted that someone who has direct experience as a teacher and in government at the highest level is helping Her Majesty's Government in their work of improving educational standards. She joins Ofsted at a crucial moment-at a time when we are refocusing its inspection on what really counts. We are getting rid of the tick-box mentality, which has meant that far too much time has been taken up by pointless bureaucracy and political correctness. Instead, we are telling Ofsted to concentrate on four areas: the quality of behaviour and discipline in our schools; the quality of leadership, because nothing matters more than having great leaders; the quality of teaching, because every moment in the classroom is precious; and the quality of attainment and achievement, including the progression of the poorest pupils. This relentless focus on what counts and this stripping away of bureaucracy are at the heart of the Bill, and I hope that these measures will commend themselves to every Member.

Lisa Nandy: I was glad to hear the Secretary of State mention pupils. We have heard a great deal about teachers, which is welcome, but we have heard very little so far about children. I would like to ask him about one particular group of children who will be devastated by the behaviour proposals that he is seeking to introduce, and that is young carers, who often do not tell anybody that they have caring responsibilities because they are ashamed of it and wish to be seen as normal. I worked with many young carers for several years, and I have consistently asked for safeguards in the legislation to ensure that those children will not suffer undue prejudice because of the no-notice detentions that have been brought in, but I have been unable to get any answers from his team. Will he assure me that he will find a way to protect this group of children, and will he tell us today what it is?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. The hon. Lady has championed children with caring responsibilities in her role working for the Children's Society and now in the House, and I take her point on board. However, the power that we are giving to teachers is a discretionary one-we trust professionals. There is a distinction between the position of some Labour Members and Government Members. We do not believe that teachers are whimsical, capricious or wilful in the exercise of their powers. We believe that teachers should be supported and backed at every point, but we also believe that it is necessary, when we recognise that there are children exercising caring responsibilities, to make appropriate provision for them. That is what we will ensure and properly fund every school to do.

Edward Timpson: May I take the Secretary of State back to his remarks about the refocusing of Ofsted? I welcome the fact that it will be more about what is happening in the classrooms than in the filing cabinet in a school, but may I ask him specifically how looked-after children will be monitored through the inspection process to ensure that their progression through school is being closely watched to ensure that their outcomes are as good as possible?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We all know that in his work as a children's lawyer before he entered the House he was a very effective advocate for the interests of looked-after children. We will ensure that the system of virtual heads is built on and that looked-after children, whatever their circumstances, are in receipt of the pupil premium. We are consulting on which performance measures we should use to ensure that looked-after children, children eligible for free school meals and other children whose prior attainment was poor are captured, so that every school has an incentive to ensure that those children are educated at least as well as other children, and that the attainment gap between those children and others, which grew under the previous Government, is at last closed.
	There will be a relentless focus on standards, not just to help children with caring responsibilities or looked-after children, who might perhaps have received less than their due in the past, but to ensure that our education system can stand comparison with the best in the world. That is why the Bill contains explicit provisions to ensure that schools will take part in international studies, such as the programme for international student assessment, the progress in international reading literacy study and the trends in international mathematics and science study. It will also ensure that Ofqual, the exams watchdog, is explicitly tasked with ensuring that our qualifications and examinations can compare with the world's best.
	It is long overdue that we should do that, because it is a sad fact that our curriculum is not keeping pace with changes that are occurring in other, educationally high-performing nations. In the primary curriculum for mathematics in Hong Kong, students are expected to be able to master calculations with fractions and the solution of equations, and to know about the properties of cones, pyramids and spheres, but not in England. In Singapore, students studying science at primary school are expected to have a basic understanding of cells as the basic unit of life. They are also expected to know about the importance of the water cycle and the earth's position relative to the sun as a factor in its ability to support life. However, those core curriculum details are not in the curriculum in this country.
	Let us look at other nations. The principle of adding and subtracting fractions is in the core curriculum in Armenia, Colombia, El Salvador and Yemen, but not England. Comparing and matching different representations of the same data is in the curriculum in Lithuania, Ukraine and Tunisia, but not England, while finding a rule for the relationship between pairs of numbers is in the curriculum of Hungary and Slovenia, but not here. We cannot possibly expect our children to compete in the 21st century unless our curriculum equips them with the knowledge and skills that our competitors are giving their children.

Jesse Norman: I welcome many aspects of the Bill and would like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the situation of sixth-form colleges, which offer an excellent and inexpensive education. In particular, Hereford sixth-form college, which he may know from personal acquaintance, fulfils many of the requirements that he would want in any curriculum, yet it is currently caught by a combination of a cut in the Young People's Learning Agency, the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, which especially affects rural areas, and the rise in VAT. Will he perhaps take a second glance at that unfortunate combination?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Hereford sixth-form college, which I have had the opportunity to visit; indeed, I enjoyed dining there with him and others. We are committed to ensuring that we increase funding for 16 to 19-year-olds who are studying in sixth-form colleges such as Hereford sixth-form college. We will also specifically increase the proportion of funding going to the most disadvantaged, who I know are a particular care for my hon. Friend.

Andrew Percy: Let me take the Secretary of State back to the curriculum. I welcome the changes that he has announced. Important as it is for our young people to understand how to do quadratic equations and all the rest, it is also incredibly important that they should learn functional skills through the curriculum. I would therefore like to make a plea for financial education for young people, which could play a particularly important role in the mathematics curriculum, in functional maths. Although we obviously want our young people to learn all the important skills in the various subject areas, they must also learn something functional that they can put to use later in life.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes an impeccable point. One of the problems with the mathematics curriculum is that it lacks many of the skills-and much of the knowledge-that are being taught in other countries, equipping the young people there with the ability to take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. The point that he makes could not be better made.
	It is also the case that, as well as our curriculum not being fit for the 21st century, many of our schools are not fit for the 21st century either. It is a sad reflection of the last Government that there are still so many schools that are below acceptable standards. The Bill will therefore give the Department for Education the power to intervene where there is failure. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that where children are trapped in an underperforming school, there should be the opportunity to ensure that the leadership and the investment are in place so that those children have the same opportunities in life as those who were fortunate enough to be born in areas where the schools are stronger.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Michael Gove: In just a second.
	We are raising the bar on floor standards; we are showing less tolerance of failure than has ever been shown before; and, where a school is failing, we are taking powers to intervene to ensure that when an academy solution is right, when the local authority can find a superior head teacher and when that school deserves to be federated, then whatever action is required will be taken. I hope that all hon. Members, in every part of the House, will join me in saying that there can be no excuse for failure. The culture that so often prevailed in the past which says, "These children come from such and such a background, or these children have such and such parents, so we cannot expect more of them," should be consigned to the past, where it belongs. We must ensure that in every part of the country, children have a right to high-quality education. We must also ensure that the absurd bias of the past, which suggested that just because children have working-class parents or come from immigrant backgrounds, they cannot access an academic curriculum, is ditched too.
	For anyone who doubts that that is possible, I would ask them to visit some of the superb schools out there, such as Mossbourne in Hackney or Durand in Lambeth, the latter in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). One of the things that they will find at Durand, for example, is that it has a higher proportion of children who are eligible for free school meals than the Lambeth average, and a higher proportion of children on the special educational needs register, yet every child attains at least level 4, and many get level 5, at key stage 2. In other words, they are performing well above the national average.
	Mossbourne community academy is outside local authority control, and it has an inspirational head teacher, Sir Michael Wilshaw. This year, 10 of its children are going to Cambridge. What are their backgrounds? They are from one of the poorest boroughs in London-

Kevin Brennan: They did not do the English baccalaureate.

Michael Gove: They certainly did! The hon. Gentleman should listen, because he fails to appreciate that schools such as Mossbourne academy have head teachers who recognise that every child deserves an academic education. He can sneer if he likes, but if those 10 children had been in a school where he was the head teacher, they would not have had the opportunity to go to Cambridge. He would have said to them, "I'm terribly sorry, but it's not for the likes of you." He would have said of their studying academic subjects, "I'm terribly sorry, you're not good enough." It is that culture of "know your place", of enforced mediocrity and of denying opportunity and aspiration that the Bill directly challenges.
	The reason that there is so much discomfort among those on the Labour Front Bench is that they have been rumbled. They pose as meritocrats, but in fact, whenever an educational change comes about that tells people from disadvantaged backgrounds that they can achieve far more than they ever imagined, they say, "Oh no, we don't want that. We don't like it. It's inappropriate." For that reason, the unrepentant and unreformed socialists who form an increasing part of the representation on the Labour Benches object. It will be interesting to see whether every Labour Member votes against the Bill tonight, or whether some are sufficiently enlightened and reformist to see merit in the proposals and in aspiration, and to join us in supporting it.

Stephen Pound: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Michael Gove: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I would never accuse of being unrepentant or unreformed.

Stephen Pound: I am really not too sure how to take that, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman is now taking provocation to previously unimagined heights. He is rocketing down that pathway at breakneck speed, but I hope he will forgive me for taking him back to the point made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). Does he agree that religious education is an absolutely core part of the curriculum? When he comes to consider, say, an English baccalaureate, will he recognise the significance, importance and vital nature of religious education as the core of the curriculum in our schools?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman's own saintly behaviour while he has been in the House of Commons is an advertisement not only for religious education but for the religious education offered by the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is such a distinguished ornament- [ Laughter. ] He is certainly venerable, and he might be blessed and, one day, perhaps, saintly, but at the moment we will settle for ornamental. He is both ornament and use. He is formidably well informed; I know from our previous exchanges in Committee that he knows every single member of the Aberdeen team that won the European cup winners cup in Gothenburg in 1982- [ Interruption. ] My dad was there, as a matter of fact.  [ Interruption. ] I am grateful. We Aberdeen fans need all the support we can get at times like this. I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman that he is misinformed on this particular point, because religious education is in the curriculum. It is a compulsory subject. Moreover, the English baccalaureate is not a compulsory measure; it is simply a performance measure that will allow us to see how many students have access to five core academic subjects. The sad fact is that only 16% of students succeeded in securing the mix of subjects that make the English baccalaureate, when every other developed country demands that its students have that suite of qualifications at 15, 16 or 17. This is another example of our falling behind.
	The case for reform, as I have mentioned, is one that many Labour Members might be tempted to support. One reason they may be tempted to support it is that they will see that progressive figures from across the world are moving in the same direction as this Government. Just two weeks ago, we were privileged to have visiting the UK Mike Feinberg, the founder of the Knowledge is Power Program set of schools.
	Mike Feinberg used to be an intern for Senator Paul Simon, Barack Obama's predecessor as Senator for Illinois. Mike Feinberg, a career Democrat, was here to support our free school programme. He was joined by Joel Klein, a former Assistant Attorney-General in the Clinton Administration, and was also here to support our free school programme. They followed Arne Duncan, Barack Obama's Education Secretary, who also came here to back our free school programme. Our free school programme has also been backed by Conor Ryan, an adviser to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and to the former Prime Minister. He described the Labour party's opposition to our proposals as "ridiculous".
	Conor Ryan is not a lone voice. He has been joined by Andrew Adonis, who described 400 academies as "a phenomenal achievement". He said:
	"Neither I nor Tony Blair believed that academies should be restricted to areas with failing schools. We wanted all schools to be eligible for academy status, and we were enthusiastic about the idea of entirely new schools being established on the academy model, as in Michael Gove's Free Schools policy."
	It is not just a matter of what Conor Ryan and Andrew Adonis said, as I shall cite what Tony Blair himself said:
	"In many areas of... policy, the Tories will be at their best when they are allowed to get on with it-as with reforms in education".
	I have a question for every Opposition Member: are they going to listen to the reformist Prime Minister who secured them three election victories, or are they going to go back to the atavistic class warrior instincts that will lead them to oppose this Bill? Tony Blair in his memoirs also pointed out that when a reformist Government are in power, it is very easy for an Opposition to oppose. He went on to say that when there are reforms like ours, the Opposition should support them, but he pointed out that Oppositions tend to get
	"dragged almost unconsciously, almost unwillingly into wholesale opposition. It's where the short-term market in votes is. It is where the party feels most comfortable. It's what gets the biggest cheer. The trouble is it also chains the Opposition to positions that in the longer term look irresponsible, short-sighted, just plain wrong."
	That is Tony Blair's verdict on the opposition of the current official Opposition Front-Bench team to this Bill-"irresponsible, short-sighted" and "just plain wrong".

Barry Sheerman: I cannot remember how many years the Secretary of State has been a Member of this House, but I would like to know how many times he voted for one of Tony Blair's Education Bills on Second Reading, which is what he is asking us to do tonight?

Michael Gove: One of my first acts was enthusiastically to support Tony Blair's Education Bill on Second Reading. In fact, when I was a journalist, I was always happy to support to Tony Blair-rather more conspicuously than some Labour Members, including the shadow Chancellor and indeed the current Leader of the Opposition, did-and I am happy to say that our Bill, as Fiona Millar points out in  The Guardian today, is in many respects one that builds on what Tony Blair wanted to do in 2005, but was thwarted by reactionaries on the Labour Benches.
	That brings me to the heart of the challenge for the Opposition tonight. Will they be on the side of reform, consensus and progress in favour of a 21st-century curriculum and a 21st-century school system, or will they vote against that and put themselves in a Division Lobby thus saying no to money for early intervention, no to support for students at primary school, no to turning around our weaker schools, no to getting rid of bureaucracy and no to more good school places.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Michael Gove: I shall not give way again.
	This Bill provides an historic opportunity for this country. It will help to guarantee every child a high quality education, which will equip them for the technological, economic, social and cultural challenges of the next century. Throughout history, the opportunities we give to our young people have far too often been a matter of time and chance. Accidents of birth or geography have determined children's fate, but education can change all that. Education allows each of us to become the author of our own life story. Instead of going down a path determined for us by external constraints, it allows each of us to shape our lives and the communities around us for the better. What this Bill offers is a chance for every Member to shape our education system for the better, to give every child a greater level of opportunity and to transform their futures. That is why I so enthusiastically commend it to the House.

Andy Burnham: It is only weeks since the Government asked the House to pass an education Act using procedures normally reserved for counter-terrorism legislation. Today the Secretary of State is back with an even more audacious request. He is asking Members of the House of Commons to give him more than 50 new powers, and near-total control over almost every aspect of our school system in England. He wants the power to seize land, to close schools, to overrule councils on budgets, to ban teachers from working, to define early-years provision, and to rewrite the curriculum without reference to parents or the public.
	The Secretary of State has been known to claim-and he did so again today-that he is continuing Labour's reforms. Labour Members empowered parents with guarantees, but the Bill does precisely the opposite. It constitutes an unprecedented power grab from pupils, parents, professionals and the public, leaving them without essential safeguards in a free-for-all. As we have heard, the Secretary of State wants to tell children what subjects and facts they must learn, and what kind of schools they must go to. Student and parent choice is being restricted.
	During the passage of the Bill, the House will have to reflect very carefully on whether it can ever be healthy for so much power over something as precious as our children's education to be vested in one person. Given the Secretary of State's record in office to date, would it not be downright reckless to give him a free hand in such crucial issues? Local authorities will be stripped of their long-standing role of looking after all children in their areas, balancing the wishes of one group against those of another and thereby ensuring that service is shaped by need and not by the loudest voices.
	Where does this leave Government promises of localism? I look to the Liberal Democrat Benches. Where does it leave those promises? Absolutely nowhere. By preaching freedom and autonomy-as he so frequently does-only to come up with a highly prescriptive reform of the curriculum, the Secretary of State places himself in serious danger of collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions.
	As with the Government's national health service reforms, the fabric of public services is being ripped up. Power is being taken from people and handed back to the system. The result is a huge void in public accountability at local level. Liberal Democrat councillors can see that; why cannot Members of Parliament see it as well? The Bill reveals an unhealthy obsession with structures, and the mistaken view that structural reform automatically leads to higher standards. It does not. The Bill has little to say about what really matters to parents: high standards in the basics, a rich and balanced curriculum, and quality teaching in every classroom.
	There are elements of the Bill that we support, such as the proposals relating to early-years provision and discipline, and I shall say something about those later. However, what we are witnessing from this Secretary of State-and, indeed, from the Secretary of State for Health-is an unseemly rush to reform in which the normal processes of government are simply ditched. There will be no pilots, no evidence and no consultation. No time will be taken to listen to parents and children, consult teachers, and build the broad consensus in the country that should properly underpin any education reform. We will oppose the Bill tonight because it represents too big a gamble with the life chances of our children, and because-as I shall now set out in terms-it takes power from pupils, parents, professionals and the public, leaving them with fewer protections in a less publicly accountable education system.
	Let me explain first how the Bill takes power from pupils. It restricts student choice and takes away guarantees at a time when youth unemployment is at a record high. It strips yet more support from young people, adding to the growing risk of a lost generation. This is national apprenticeships week. Debating the abolition of a guarantee of an apprenticeship for all suitably qualified 16 to 19-year-olds seems to me an odd way in which to mark it. It cements the impression that this Secretary of State gives very little thought indeed to the hopes and life chances of the 50% of young people who are unlikely to go to university. That is further strengthened by clause 29, which lifts the requirement on local authorities to ensure young people have access to studying for the diploma. Both the Association of Colleges and the Association of School and College Leaders have expressed concerns that that sends the
	"wrong message about the future of vocational education."
	 [Interruption.] The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning shakes his head, but that is what they say. Does it not also send the wrong message about student choice in this day and age that young people might not be able to choose the courses that will give them the skills they need?

Graham Stuart: May I gently request that the right hon. Gentleman does not take this line on apprenticeships? I served on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill Committee. One criticism was that the Bill gave a statutory right to an apprenticeship when one needs a job to get one. The right hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the current Bill simply recognises that reality, but does not alter the right of a young person who secures a job that needs apprenticeship funding to get that funding from Government. I therefore do not think the right hon. Gentleman is taking the right line on this very important issue.

Andy Burnham: I hear what the Chair of the Select Committee on Education says, but this guarantee was important because it was about bringing forward offers of apprenticeships, particularly from the public sector, so that there are sufficient opportunities for young people who decide that university is not for them. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that we in Parliament have neglected debating the opportunities for those 50% of young people who do not plan to go to university. We owe it to them to do more by debating the quality of the opportunities that we are going to give them so that they can have a foothold in the future and hope of a better life. We endlessly debate higher education, and that is very important, but is it not about time that we gave more thought to young people who want to get a good skill so that they can get on in life? The hon. Gentleman's Secretary of State has absolutely nothing to say to them.

Robert Halfon: The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the 75,000 extra apprenticeships this Government are creating, and the support for university technical colleges, which will provide vocational education to 14 to 19-year-olds, and which are being rolled out throughout the country.

Andy Burnham: I have two points to make in response to that. The Secretary of State is very fond of talking about the Mossbourne academy and quoting its head, Sir Michael Wilshaw, and rightly so as it is an amazing success story, but Sir Michael has pleaded with the Government to give him a
	"technical and craft-based curriculum option"
	in the curriculum review. The English baccalaureate has nothing to say to heads such as Sir Michael Wilshaw, and the Secretary of State needs to start listening to those views.
	The Secretary of State also referred to Hong Kong today. Let me quote what the Under-Secretary for Education of Hong Kong said last week when he was asked about what makes his system so successful. He said the success was down to a curriculum that emphasises 21st century skills, not 1950s languages and not an approach to language study that fails to reflect the modern day. He also said that the success was not about
	"asking students to memorise a whole set of facts and be able to regurgitate them in a test."
	The Secretary of State is fond of quoting international examples only to drop them, but he had better read up on what the Hong Kong Minister has said about why his system is successful.

John Hayes: I have just been pondering what language we were speaking in the 1950s that we are not speaking now, but, leaving that to one side, the right hon. Gentleman must know that this Government have placed unprecedented emphasis on skills. He must know that I have been a champion of the 50% of young people he mentions whose vocational tastes and talents deserve recognition in the education system. He must know that we published a schools strategy shortly after coming into government, and he must know that we have put enough funding in place to deliver 30,000 more apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds. If he does not know that, he should.

Andy Burnham: On the Minister's first point, my mum reliably informs me that in 1950s Liverpool the mass was said in Latin, but I can tell him that it is not today. On his second point, he needs to tell the shadow schools Minister in Committee why he is removing the apprenticeships guarantee. What is the reason? If we are convinced that this can be done without restricting opportunities to young people who are not planning to go to university, perhaps we will be satisfied, but he does not fill me with encouragement.

Steve Rotheram: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Governments do not create apprenticeships, they fund apprenticeships? Employers create apprenticeships and under the previous Labour Government the number of apprenticeships trebled. Does he agree that it is simply laughable that the Secretary of State is trying to position himself as the champion of the working classes, and that we should invite him to Goodison Park to meet some ordinary working people, so that he can learn from them about what these policies will do to ordinary working-class families?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right that the Government have nothing to say to young people who want to plan to get a good skill so that they can get on in life. He rightly said that employers create apprenticeships, but the Government are a huge employer. When I was Health Secretary we increased the number of apprenticeships from 1,000 to 5,000, but that was not enough in the country's biggest employer and the third biggest employer in the world. It was the existence of that guarantee that meant that public services had to work hard to increase the number of apprenticeship places they were making available. My worry is that by dropping this commitment the Government are going to throw that progress into reverse. The Government have figures for funding apprenticeships, but I am not certain that they are going to turn into a real increase in the number of apprenticeships, and the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will need to have some good answers on that point in Committee.

John Hayes: rose -

Andy Burnham: I am going to make some progress now.
	The Government are re-erecting the Berlin wall between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications, which sends a very poor message about student choice. At every turn, the Secretary of State is making life harder for young people who want to get good skills. Why, we might ask, is he pre-empting his own Wolf review by abandoning the diploma in this Bill?

Elizabeth Truss: Do not our leading competitors, such as Germany, Japan and France, specify study for more core academic qualifications until 16 than Britain does and that the number of people studying academic qualifications, such as modern foreign languages, has dropped in this country?

Andy Burnham: I wonder what evidence the hon. Lady has for that statement, because those countries-I cited the Hong Kong Minister-want to give young people skills for the world as it is now, not for the 1950s. How can it make sense to send the message to young people and schools in her constituency that it is better to study a dead language than to study information and communications technology, business studies and all the other things that will help young people to make their way in the world? The Secretary of State said in his speech, "We want to encourage the Googles, the Facebooks and the Microsofts." I think I quoted him almost perfectly. Why, then, is ICT not in his English baccalaureate? How are we going to have a work force that can give a supply of trained people to those companies and encourage them to come to this country? Has he spoken to employers about his English baccalaureate?

Michael Gove: indicated assent.

Andy Burnham: He nods, but I have severe doubts.

Charlotte Leslie: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the massive gap between state education and private education in securing the top jobs in this country? Does he recognise that private schools offer more academic qualifications and that by not enabling state schools to offer those academic qualifications he is essentially relegating state school pupils from those top jobs?

Andy Burnham: I do not accept the hon. Lady's analysis. I went from a state school to Cambridge and my dad said to me, "It will open every door for you in life. You will just walk into any job you want." He said that because I took some persuading to go, as I was not convinced that it would be for me. My dad was wrong, because it did not open every door. It is the networks and the conversations around the dinner party table that open the doors to those top jobs. I am talking about the people who can sort out two weeks' work experience in the holiday period, because that is what gets people through. What further restricts opportunities for young people is the culture of unpaid internships, where young people are expected to come to London to work for free. That is beyond the reach of many working-class young people in this country, who simply cannot afford to work for free for three months in London. That is what ensures that the top jobs remain in the reach of a small social circle, as the BBC creatively and accurately reported last week.

Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that the chief executive of German Industry UK gave evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on inward investment today. He commented that master plumbers in Germany have the same status as people with many degrees. Apprenticeships are crucial to driving forward the German economy, which is expanding much faster than the zero growth that we have seen under this Government. Does he agree that that is not reflected in the Government's plans, which will result in economic slowness in comparison with our competitors?

Andy Burnham: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The diploma, which the previous Labour Government introduced, was an attempt to bridge the divide between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications, which should remain our aim. We should want all children not to choose one route or another, but to do academic subjects and learn practical skills that will serve them well through life. My worry about this Secretary of State is that he is further entrenching the divide between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications and sending a message to those who wish to pursue a vocational route that they are second best or somehow second class, which is a damaging step to take. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has said, most other countries do not have such a divide, which is why I argue that this Bill takes us back to the past.

Mel Stride: The right hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members frequently refer to Sir Richard Lambert and his comments about our growth strategy, and they have quoted him at length. Does he agree with what Sir Richard Lambert said about education in this country and preparing young people for work in an interview in  The Guardian in December 2009, when he said that the Labour Government's record in that respect was "shameful"?

Andy Burnham: I agree that we need to ensure that all young people have absolute rigour in the basics in English and maths.
	The Secretary of State began today by discussing a string of statistics, but he did not say how the number of young people leaving school with good GCSEs in English and maths increased considerably under the previous Government, as did the number of young people leaving school with five good GCSEs. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) entered office, some 50% of schools in this country had a record whereby kids were not leaving with five good GCSEs-it was total failure. When we left office, that figure had been massively reduced, which gives the lie to the Secretary of State's comments at the beginning that we "failed a generation". That was an outrageous comment, and it is not backed up by the facts.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend might be interested in the words of Dr Christopher Ray writing in the January edition of  T he Old Mancunia n:
	"The latest wheeze from Whitehall is the English Baccalaureate, launched with a breathtaking lack of forethought by the Secretary of State for Education...MGS stands proudly at the bottom of these surreal tables-along with such other notable academic failures as St Paul's, Eton, Winchester and King Edward's Birmingham."
	Perhaps those are five cases where the Secretary of State can use his power to intervene.

Andy Burnham: As a proud Scouser, I can say that I never read  The Old Mancunian. Indeed, I am surprised to find that I agree with something in it, but I do. I have visited schools recently and I have been struck by the anger and, in some cases, despair of head teachers. They have worked night and day with their staff to raise standards in their schools, and along has come a retrospectively applied league table, which has knocked the stuffing out of them. I think it is quite immoral to say to those schools, "You are now at zero: you have 0% five GCSEs under this measure," when they were not being judged by that measure previously. That applies to all kinds of schools, many of which might ask why the Secretary of State has chosen those five subjects on which to test them. Schools are voting with their feet and young people are choosing to do other things.

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is immoral to tell parents in which subjects schools are performing well? Will he also tell me which other European countries do not ask their students to have a suite of academic subjects assessed at the age of 15, 16 or 17?

Andy Burnham: Why did I make that comment? I made it because I believe in student choice and parent choice. I believe that the same subjects will not be right for everyone and I do not believe that an arbitrary selection of subjects that seems to have come from the Secretary of State and his office should be used to judge the performance of every child and school in the country. I do not understand why ICT, religious education and business studies are not in the selection if he wants to create the work force of tomorrow, as he said earlier. Yesterday, he stood at the Dispatch Box and quoted the Henley review of music education in England that he was publishing on that day. We all received a fairly pious lecture about this issue yesterday, but let me quote from the review. Paragraph 3.6 states:
	"Music is an important academic subject in the secondary school curriculum. When its constituent parts are next reviewed, I believe that Music should be included as one of the subjects that go to make up the new English Baccalaureate."
	So, experts commissioned by him are telling him that his choices are too narrow and restrictive.  [ Interruption. ] Does he want to comment on that?

Michael Gove: I just wanted an answer to my question about which other European countries do not ask of their 15, 16 or 17-year-old students what level of competency they have achieved in those academic subjects. I would be very interested to know which countries the right hon. Gentleman holds up as an exemplar because they deliberately do not insist on an academic core. Can he answer that?

Andy Burnham: As I said to the Secretary of State yesterday, the programme for international student assessment research says that the systems that give the most autonomy in choice are the most successful. Is the Secretary of State saying that they all replicate his English baccalaureate? I do not think so. They have a better mix of academic and vocational qualifications.  [ Interruption. ] He would not listen to the example I just gave him about an expert whom he-

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: No I will not.  [ Interruption . ]

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there any point in Back Benchers turning up to education debates? The Secretary of State spent 52 minutes at the Dispatch Box and this is the fourth intervention that he is making on my right hon. Friend's speech. What is the point of the rest of us who are interested in education and who want to participate coming here at all.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order but it is a good point that should be made to the House. I understand that both Front Benchers have a lot to say, but it does prevent Back Benchers from taking part in the debate. The sooner we can get on the better.

Andy Burnham: I have answered the Secretary of State's question- [ Interruption. ] -and have I put it to him that an expert whom he commissioned is saying to him, "Keep music as an option in the English baccalaureate," and answer there was none about what he is going to do with that recommendation. The Secretary of State has not convinced the experts and he is not even convincing his own side.  [ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Gove, I am sure that we can restrain ourselves for a little longer.

Andy Burnham: The Secretary of State is not even convincing his own activists. On ConservativeHome today, there was an article by Ed Watkins, a music teacher in south London and the deputy chairman of Dulwich and West Norwood Conservatives. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members cheer him, but will they still be cheering in a moment? He wrote:
	"The principles lying behind the English Baccalaureate are therefore grounded in a sensible solution to a problem."-
	He is halfway there with that. He continued:
	"Those principles have, however, been applied in an arbitrary manner in the selection of subjects. Why History but not R.E.? Why Biblical Hebrew but not Art? Why Geography but not Music?"
	It seems that rather than heckling me, the Secretary of State has a little more work to do with his own side.

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: No, I will not.
	My point- [Interruption.] My point, if the right hon. Gentleman will listen to it, is that children have a right to a broad and balanced curriculum, and his prescriptive English baccalaureate is taking us away from that. The body that has independently advised Ministers, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, is being abolished, so what can we expect in the future? We can expect ministerial whim replacing independent expert advice. As the Education Committee pointed out last week, a mix of academic and vocational options is more likely to keep young people engaged and help reduce behaviour problems.
	We welcome provisions in the Bill to ensure that every young person has access to independent careers advice, but we fear that this is yet another instance where rhetoric will fail to live up to the reality. Is not the truth that the Secretary of State's mismanagement of transition arrangements to an all-age careers service and front-loaded cuts to local authority budgets have meant that careers advice is disappearing?
	Why does the Bill remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to enforce the new legal participation age of 18? Is it because, with the scrapping of EMA and the other measures that I have described, he knows that full participation until 18 will never be achieved? Alongside the clauses on higher education, no wonder ASCL talks of a Bill with
	"serious implications for social mobility".
	In the ways that I have described, the Bill takes power from pupils and, in the words of UNICEF,
	"risks narrowing the educational agenda and limiting children's rights within schools."
	Let me turn to how the Bill takes power from parents. The National Children's Bureau has called this a Bill which
	"chips away at hard-won parental rights".
	It removes their ability to challenge decisions about admissions and exclusions and to make local complaints. The Bill abolishes the local admissions forum. ASCL raises concerns that there
	"may now be a void in policing admissions".
	Admissions forums involve local parent representation, governors and heads. They exist to give parents avenues of redress and to help them get a fair deal. As with many provisions in the Bill, their abolition seems at odds with ideas of localism. With no group co-ordinating fair admissions, the NASUWT says that there are real risks of increased inequality, back-door selection and covert discrimination.
	We welcome the extension of the schools adjudicator's powers in relation to academies and individual cases, but we fear that this move is undermined overall by a weakening of the adjudicator's role and his ability to change admission arrangements. ASCL has said that it is
	"essential that parents have a well defined route to deal with their grievances relating to admissions" ,
	yet the Bill repeals parents' power to complain to the local commissioner.
	The Secretary of State mentioned Tony Blair and our reforms. They were all about empowering parents, just as in the health service we empowered patients with guarantees. The Bill strips away those powers from parents. That is why we do not support it.

Catherine McKinnell: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in addition to the powers being stripped from parents by the Bill, they are also losing the right to legal aid for education cases? Parents without means finding themselves in difficult and challenging situations when fighting for their children will therefore be left without any recourse for help.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It brings me on to the subject of parents whose children have special educational needs or disabilities. Her point is particularly important in respect of such parents. Concerns have been raised about the measures in the Bill disempowering parents in relation to exclusions. The removal of the ability of appeals panels to tell schools to reinstate a pupil who has been expelled has been described by the National Children's Bureau as
	"counter to the principles of natural justice."
	These changes affect the rights of every parent and the life chances of every child, but they have big implications for the most vulnerable.
	Parents of children with disabilities and special needs already face a battle to get them a good education. With its changes to admissions and exclusions, which will see schools become judge and jury, the Bill stacks the odds against those children even further. Poor behaviour can arise from a failure to identify or support a child's special needs, yet in future any exclusions that might result will be much harder to challenge.
	The changes must also be seen in the context of the diminishing ability of local authority to fund and co-ordinate specialist services that help children facing the biggest challenges. The Education Committee has noted that some pupils could be left
	"without access to critical support".
	The autism charity, TreeHouse, fears that councils will no longer be able to plan services for children with complex needs.
	That brings us to a central problem with the Government's rush to reform: the Bill has been brought forward before the long-promised Green Paper on special educational needs. The National Autistic Society has stated:
	"The impact of certain aspects of the Education Bill on children with SEN and disabilities... will not be known until the Green Paper has been made public."
	That means that the Government are asking Members to vote on these measures without giving them either answers to the questions posed by TreeHouse or the ability to feel sure that the most vulnerable children in their constituencies will not be adversely affected. That is profoundly wrong. It is an abusive process and an affront to this House, but, much worse, it sends a clear message to the parents who are most affected that their children are an afterthought for the Government.

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: I will give way on that important point.

Michael Gove: I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my previous question about EU nations, but can he perhaps enlighten the House on-

Glenda Jackson: He is talking about children with special educational needs and you are going on about other matters. It is a disgrace-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Michael Gove: Those of us who have family members with special educational needs will have found the hon. Lady's outburst objectionable. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many special schools closed under the Labour Government and how many more parents were forced to buy private education for their children with special educational needs over the past 13 years?

Andy Burnham: I do not have those figures to hand, but special schools closed in my constituency and in my local authority area because we pursued a vision of inclusion within state schools. That was the right thing to do, because some of those young people are now educated alongside other children in their community, and it is human and social progress to teach those young people in that way. The question I put to the Secretary of State, which he did not answer, was this: how can he ask any Member to be sure that the Bill will not harm vulnerable children in their constituencies when we have not seen his proposals on special educational needs? What ability will anyone have to place obligations on academies or free schools to look out for their children? We do not know whether he is creating them as self-sufficient islands that can do whatever they like, so how can we be sure that children with special educational needs will not get second best from the schools system he is creating? He cannot answer that question tonight because we have not seen the Green Paper. It should have been published before the Bill was brought before the House.

Pat Glass: The Secretary of State knows very well that under the Labour Government some special schools closed because they were just not good enough, but special school places were created, and there were more when we left office than when we came into office.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend, who knows more about these matters than anyone in the House, has put the Secretary of State straight.
	I have one final comment about parents. We support the extension of free early years provision for disadvantaged two-year-olds, but we are deeply concerned that that is undermined by the Government's failure to protect Sure Start. Furthermore, giving the Secretary of State the power to define early years provision, who gets it and when they get it places question marks over the universal free entitlement for three and four-year olds. I ask him to make it clear that he does not intend to cut such provision or to introduce means-testing, particularly as fears have also been raised by the Bill's introduction of powers to charge.

Andy Slaughter: One of the Secretary of State's homilies was on equal chances, but my constituency is one of the most socially and ethnically diverse in the country, and more than half the Sure Start centres are being closed by a Conservative council. The Secretary of State and his Ministers wash their hands of that, but is it not perverse to talk about creating extra provision for two-year-olds when the provision for three and four-year-olds is being cut by 50% in seats such as mine?

Andy Burnham: The Government say that they have given councils enough money, but they have also given them a list of 20 or more things that they have to fund from the same budget as that which pays for Sure Start. How does my local authority, which is getting a cut of some £160 per head from the Government, keep all its support and provision open while other councils in other parts of the country get cuts on nothing like that scale? It is deeply unfair, and it will take away crucial services in constituencies such as my hon. Friend's and mine.

Bill Esterson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andy Burnham: One final time, then I shall make some progress.

Bill Esterson: In my right hon. Friend's opening remarks, he mentioned contradictions and the ability to overrule local authorities when it comes to schools. In Sefton, the 12.9% cut in the early intervention grant means that all the children's centres are now under review, but the Secretary of State says that he wants all children's centres and the network to be maintained. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) describes what is happening in his constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if closures go ahead, they will undermine any good measures in the Bill to boost early years provision? Does he agree also that, if the Secretary of State is prepared to intervene on schools, he should take the same approach and intervene on local authorities when it comes to protecting the network of Sure Start centres?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I was struck yesterday by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who feels that his report, which was commissioned by the Prime Minister, will be undermined if cuts on such a scale proceed, because the delivery system for early intervention will simply no longer be in place in constituencies throughout the country. Let us remember that this Prime Minister accused the former Prime Minister of trying to scare people about Sure Start. This Prime Minister said that he would build on Sure Start, but that is yet another broken promise.
	Let me turn to how the Bill takes power from the profession. The Education Secretary says that he wants to put teachers in the driving seat, but again we see a widening gap between rhetoric and reality. There has been a 10% drop in applications for teacher training this year, which does not say much for his powers of recruitment. The drop has been blamed on his decision not to allow the Training and Development Agency for Schools to run its usual advertising and marketing campaigns to attract people to the profession. With the Bill's abolition of the TDA, teacher training places cut by 14% and most bursaries scrapped, surely we can expect to see teacher shortages in a few years' time.
	The Bill restricts teachers' freedoms, undermines the status of their profession, reduces their entitlement to ongoing professional development and fails to protect the rights of support staff. Ongoing development is a hugely important issue for many teachers. The TDA provided a vehicle for identifying the training needs of the profession, and its abolition raises concerns about the future of teacher training and professional development.
	The think-tank million+ says that
	"the TDA avoided teacher training being the subject of political interference",
	and that
	"given the current ministerial view",
	there is a
	"real danger that teaching as a profession is being downgraded."
	Those are its words; that is what million+ says.

Andrew Percy: Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

Andy Burnham: I will not; I am making some progress.
	On the abolition of the General Teaching Council for England, ASCL says that
	"in this and other matters, we are concerned about the large number of additional powers being granted to the Secretary of State."
	How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly be judge and jury over every case of misconduct? Surely teachers have a right to be judged by their peers, not by politicians in Whitehall. I speak as a former Health Secretary, where we had well developed, independent systems of self-regulation for the medical profession. Surely that model is the right one for teaching.
	Perhaps the Secretary of State's biggest slight on the professional status of teachers is his insistence-

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: I will not.
	Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's biggest slight on the professional status of teachers is his insistence that free schools must not be held back by the requirement to hire qualified individuals to teach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, it makes a mockery of his claims to value teacher training. Either he believes it is important or he does not; he does not have a convincing answer to that question.
	The abolition of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body sets back efforts to improve professional standards among support staff, as well as fair pay and work force planning. Support staff are key members of the education team around the child. Unison has said that the Secretary of State is
	"ignorant of the reasons for its establishment".
	This impression is given further weight by the fact that the Bill overlooks support staff in introducing anonymity for professionals facing allegations from pupils. The Secretary of State asked whether we would support that measure, and we do, but we agree with the ASCL that it should be
	"extended to cover teachers and support staff in colleges and support staff in schools".
	The Secretary of State nods, and I hope that he will give that suggestion serious consideration.
	On other provisions relating to behaviour and discipline, we are broadly supportive of a direction of travel that builds on our achievements, although we will seek reassurance in Committee that powers to search pupils are necessary and proportionate. We welcome the proposed changes to make schools find and fund alternative provision for excluded pupils, but we would like that measure to be included in the Bill.
	Fourthly and finally, this Bill takes power from the public. Schools should be at the heart of local communities, but the Bill removes communities' rights-

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: I will not.
	This Bill removes communities' rights to decide what kind of school they have-the Secretary of State is offering a one-size-fits-all model: an academy or nothing- and restricts the information available to them about their schools. It makes strategic, community-wide planning for children and young people more difficult. According to the National Children's Bureau,
	"it fails to promote and indeed protect the strategic relationship that schools must have with their local community."
	We know the Government's answer to this-that communities can set up their own schools. It is the same with libraries, forests and children's centres. Communities want control and involvement, but they do not want chaos and cuts to be unleashed on the services they value and then to be told, "It's okay-you're free to set up your own."

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: No, I will not.
	Communities need other, more practical avenues of redress. Free schools are approved by the Secretary of State with no requirement for groups setting them up to consult widely with the local population. There is a complete lack of transparency and accountability over funding. We know that the Government have set aside £50 million to pay for new free schools, and we know from reports yesterday that about £25 million has been pledged to just two schools. Earlier, the Secretary of State failed to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) about this. We know that a further 13 have been given promises of funding, but we do not know how much. Named day questions to Ministers simply go unanswered. It is not surprising that many communities believe that existing local schools are being left to fall into disrepair to allow free schools the money to be set up.

Richard Fuller: rose -

Andy Burnham: I have given way to the Secretary of State about three times, so I will give somebody else a chance.

Richard Fuller: It is important that the right hon. Gentleman gets a broader perspective on his two points about free schools. In the instance of the free school that is being set up in Kempston in my constituency, there has been widespread consultation involving parents and local schools, and a debate attended by the Anti Academies Alliance. The chair of the board of the free school has said that there will be full and clear transparency, and he is head of a college of further education in my constituency that is rated outstanding by Ofsted.

Andy Burnham: My point was that that level of consultation should be required. If a free school is set up, it may be good for those immediately planning to go to there, but there may be an impact on the stability of provision around it and the viability of other local schools. There is a wider debate to be had in any community.

Richard Fuller: rose -

Andy Burnham: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
	It is simply not acceptable that we have not had any figures. Pledges are being made; Ministers are going round the country waving cheque books at people wanting to set up their pet projects. When the Government have cancelled Building Schools for the Future, it is unacceptable that they are not prepared to answer parliamentary questions to tell us how much money has been committed to these new schools. It gives the impression that, shamefully, ideology and not need is driving the allocation of capital to schools.
	We support autonomy for head teachers, but the Bill strips back the role of the local authority to an extent that even head teachers are uncomfortable with it. The ASCL has said that it is
	"concerned that there may now be too few points of contact between local authorities and schools".
	The removal of the duty to co-operate in the production of a children's plan and to work with children's trusts raises concerns over the safeguarding of children and young people. The Laming review highlighted the need for all agencies involved with children, including schools, to have a joined-up approach to ensure that no child slipped through the net. Every Child Matters was an effort to remedy the failure of services to work together. Unison says that the Bill
	"drives a wedge between schools and other local services and negates Every Child Matters".
	As I have said, the Bill takes power from the public and local communities.

Michael Gove: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: I will give way one last time.

Michael Gove: If the right hon. Gentleman were in power, would he rescind the academy status that has been acquired by schools and head teachers who want that new-found freedom?

Andy Burnham: That question is not for here and now. We would not close a good school that was well integrated with its local community and played its part in a local partnership to raise standards. I do not have a dogmatic position, as some of the acolytes of the Secretary of State like to say. I do not just want to close all free schools and all academies out of spite. That is not my position. If a school was not well integrated with its local community and was not playing its part to raise the standards of all children in the area, of course that would have to be looked at.
	In conclusion, last year's Liberal Democrat conference passed a motion supporting the role of local authorities in education and opposing an uneven playing field between schools, where some schools get more funding than others. This centralising Bill is the polar opposite of that motion. As I have shown today, it takes powers from pupils, parents, professionals and the public and leaves a huge democratic deficit in every community. Where are the Lib Dem voices now? Why are they not howling down a Bill that strips local councils of any meaningful role? They seem silent and defeated. This is a battle for the soul of state education. I hope for the sake of young people that the Lib Dems rediscover some principle and backbone, and stand up to a Bill that grants one man huge power to foist an elitist view of education on everyone.
	The vision is of a 1950s curriculum in a 19th-century school system; a free-for-all where parents have no guarantees, where there is a lack of protection for the most vulnerable children, and where for every winner there is a loser. I respect the undoubted passion for education of the Secretary of State, but his is a vision for some children, not all children. In his rush to reform, he is failing to take people with him; he is losing the confidence of head teachers; he is inflicting an ideological experiment on young people, with no pilot schemes, no consultation and no evidence to support it; he is taking power away from parents; and he is gambling with the life chances of our children. Today, in the interests of a fair education system for all, I ask the House to put the brakes on him.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before we go on, I remind Members that there is an eight-minute limit. Members do not have to take all eight minutes and if they take fewer interventions, we will get more Members in. There is a huge list and very little time.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. Last year, the Academies Act 2010 flew through Parliament. Today, we are debating the Government's second education Bill, which follows on from the White Paper entitled "The Importance of Teaching". Disraeli told the House 136 years ago:
	"Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends."-[ Official Report, 15 June 1874; Vol. 219, c. 1618.]
	That view was true then; today, it is even more obvious and is shared across the House.
	There is a lot to support in the Bill-a lot that even the most opportunistic of Oppositions would struggle to oppose. I welcome the priority given to behaviour and discipline, the subject of the Education Committee's first report, which was published last week. Anonymity for teachers prior to criminal charge and clarity about teachers' powers will materially help, as will the more focused brief for Ofsted. The Committee urges the Government to collect appropriate data to monitor the actual, as opposed to the perceived, state of discipline in our schools. I hope that Ministers will think on that.
	The emphasis on international comparison is also right. What was the point of the previous Government claiming higher standards at home if, compared with others, our relative position was collapsing? The changes to Ofqual are therefore also correct. The duty on schools to bring in specialist careers advice from outside is hugely welcome. The provision of advice is often woeful and exacerbates pre-existing disadvantage for those who do not have strong family networks. The change is a great move and needs to be extended to academies and free schools. If that cannot happen in the Bill, I should like to hear from Ministers that it will be included in the funding agreement.
	Those are all good things, yet I cannot help feeling a little disappointed with the Bill. When I saw "The Importance of Teaching", I thought, "Maybe the Government have got it. Maybe they'll be obsessed with teacher quality above all else", as the research suggests we should be. Attracting, retaining and motivating the brightest and best in teaching is a matter of existential importance to this country's future, and removing the incompetent is likewise essential, so what does the Bill offer on that front? Less than I would like.
	We know that Teach First, the highly selective programme to get the brightest graduates into teaching, is being doubled in size, which is extremely welcome. The entry level for teacher training is being raised to a 2:2 degree, and training will be reformed, with a big expansion of school-led initial teacher training, which the Education Committee has welcomed.
	However, it seems to me that the biggest challenges are to increase the accountability of teachers and to manage variability both within and between schools. The Government have inherited a performance management system for teachers that is toothless. The so-called social partnership was a surrender to the teaching unions and the producer interest, strangling every effort to put the interests of the child brought up in poverty ahead of those of the well-paid, qualified adult who teaches them. Our professional standards, by which the performance of teachers is judged, were written as much by union leaders as by leaders in education. When will the Secretary of State rewrite the professional standards? That cannot be started too soon.
	If the Government's promise of autonomy and accountability is to be delivered, we need more than a refocused Ofsted. We need action when children stop progressing in a teacher's class. We need a considered resetting of the rights of the child and the rights of the work force. Where are the provisions in the Bill to ensure that the teachers who do not help pupils to learn cease to teach?
	The Government have stressed the importance of autonomy in their proposals for free schools and academies, which I broadly welcome. The best education systems in the world all give their schools and heads a lot of autonomy. However, we need to be wary of concluding that greater autonomy by itself brings higher standards. High-performing leaders tend to demand and be granted more autonomy in any organisation-it is a by-product of top performance rather than an initial driver. In business, a top manager is granted more freedom because of his success. He then uses that freedom further to improve his practice. A management consultant looking at businesses with branches would find that the best-performing branches in a variety of businesses tended to have leaders with greater autonomy from the centre. Observing that, the consultant might conclude that if only all managers had those greater freedoms, standards would necessarily rise elsewhere. I believe that that would be an erroneous judgment. Can Ministers assure me that we are not making that mistake in education?
	McKinsey's excellent report, "How the world's most improved schools systems keep getting better", shows that different interventions are required at different stages of school system improvement. Ministers should reflect on its analysis and recognise that in a system as large as England's, one size does not fit all. Will they also expand on the respective roles of competition and co-operation? How will the Government ensure that competition, which is so critical to improvements in the business sector, will not stifle the exchange of best practices that is often so important in the education sector?
	I entirely understand why Ministers have proposed what they have proposed on the English baccalaureate-they want to ensure that young people are not put on Mickey Mouse courses that should be removed for their lack of rigour. However, that rightful intervention does not necessarily mean that one should assume that all courses that are not academic courses are Mickey Mouse courses that lack rigour. Surely we should ensure that we remove inappropriate courses rather than condemn them all. I am concerned that we could end up getting the mix between vocational and academic courses wrong.
	Chris Goodwin is the head teacher of Beverley grammar school in my constituency, which must be one of the highest-performing state schools in the country. Despite its name, it is the oldest state school-and indeed the oldest school-on one site in the country. It is a comprehensive school for boys and it has been found to be outstanding in its last three Ofsted inspections. Chris Goodwin and his team have extreme concerns about the potential impact of the baccalaureate. He said:
	"I thought the whole drive of the government is to give power to the Headteachers to enable them to make the right choices for their students. By publishing tables and rating schools in this way, you are placing me, the staff and students in a strait-jacket. We will have no choice but to comply, to the detriment of all concerned...This is ironic, as my entire Senior Team are in favour of a better constructed English Baccalaureate-just not this one."
	I hope the Government remain open minded on that. I absolutely understand their desire for rigour and to make the basic right to a decent academic education an opportunity for everyone in our society, but we must ensure that vocational and other courses that schools often use are not squeezed out by the baccalaureate, thus undermining so much of the good work in many of our schools.

Meg Munn: I worked in the child protection field for many years before entering the House, and I am chair of the all-party group on child protection, so I intend to confine my remarks to the parts of the Bill that affect the protection of children.
	I welcome the fact that the Bill will not repeal the safeguarding duties on schools-the duty to protect and promote the welfare of children. I understand that that was considered, and I am glad that- following pressure from organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, supported by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House-the Government recognised that it was a bad idea. It is vital that schools continue to be safe place in which children can learn and grow.
	Schools have a moral duty to keep children safe, and it is often the teacher to whom a child first turns for help when he or she faces problems at home. In my experience, it was often someone at school-a class teacher or a school nurse-who identified children at risk and monitored the well-being of those considered to be at risk.
	The Government say that they will remove duties and statutory guidance that create burdens for schools. A duty of child protection is not a burden but an expectation that parents and communities rightly have of schools. I am concerned about two measures in the Bill: the repeal of the requirement to give 24 hours' notice of detention, and changes to the powers of teachers to search children.
	Clause 5 amends section 92 of the Education Inspections Act 2006 by removing the requirement to give a parent or carer a minimum of 24 hours' written notice that their child is required to attend detention outside normal school hours. That has been trumpeted by the Government as a major step that will help to revolutionise discipline in schools, but I believe that they are wrong. Since the Minister first spoke of such a measure in the Chamber, other hon. Members and I have raised the matter on a number of occasions and received unsatisfactory responses that show a staggering disregard for the safety of children.
	When I wrote to the Secretary of State to set out my concerns, I received a reply from the Minister that did not even attempt to address the issues that I had raised. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great reluctance on the part of the Government to respond to child protection concerns. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), cancelled a meeting with the all-party group on child protection at 24 hours' notice only this week.
	Significant research tells us that often, schools are unaware of the responsibilities of young carers.

Jessica Lee: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn: I shall make a little more progress.
	Children and parents do not tell the school of young carers' responsibilities for fear of unhelpful or unwanted interference. Those children may also struggle at school due to their caring responsibilities, and consequently may well receive detention. In such circumstances, they may face a dilemma. Do they collect a younger sibling from their school, or do they disobey the teacher? That could result in a younger brother or sister being left to wait alone, or they could decide to walk home on their own in the dark. Surely the Government should be reasonable. When the matter was last discussed-in Committee on the 2006 Act-the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said that the Liberal Democrats were
	"not...in favour of removing the period of notice. It would be totally impractical."

Damian Hinds: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Meg Munn: I shall make some progress.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesperson went on to say this:
	"In rural areas, especially on dark evenings, parents would not know what had happened to their child and would be extremely concerned. It is perfectly acceptable to give 24 hours' notice, as it will allow parents to make other arrangements for travel or to arrange for a neighbour or other family member to stay at home to provide cover. Anything else would be unacceptable."-[ Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10 May 2006; c. 856.]
	That spokesperson is now the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), and she carries the responsibility as Children's Minister. She should hold to that position.
	At the very least, if the 24-hours' notice period is to be removed, why are the Government not inserting a requirement to notify parents and carers before a detention takes place? Many schools regularly text or e-mail parents and carers. If schools need to give more immediate detentions to bolster discipline, as the Government believe they do, that should not happen at the expense of children's safety. Hon. Members should be able to agree that the safety of children comes first, so I ask the Minister to introduce an appropriate amendment in Committee.
	Clause 2 specifically allows a teacher of the opposite gender to search a pupil in situations of urgency, and-crucially-when no other teacher is present. That raises a number of concerns, certainly in respect of the protection of children, but also because it creates risks for the teacher involved. The Children's Rights Alliance is also alarmed by the relaxation of safeguards for children being searched.
	My understanding is that such searches should happen only when a member of staff believes that there is a risk that serious harm will be caused if they do not conduct the search, and when it is not practicable for the search to be carried out by a member of staff of the same sex as the pupil, or for the search to be witnessed by another member of staff. Frankly, I am struggling to think of a scenario in which the search of a pupil by a member of staff of a different gender without witnesses would be the right thing to do. Obtaining the assistance of other staff members, or indeed contacting the police, would surely be the way to go.
	Can the Minister explain how that power will make a positive difference in schools? It appears to many that introducing that power could open teachers to more allegations of inappropriate behaviour, not fewer. Organisations who work with children in care have raised concerns that children who have already been physically or sexually abused would experience such a search as yet further abuse. That could lead to further trauma for them, which is surely the last thing we want.
	The Children's Rights Alliance has other concerns. It believes that such searches constitute a significant intrusion into children's privacy. Intrusions must be shown to be necessary and proportionate to be lawful. However, as well as giving extensive rights to search the individual child, the Bill enables staff to look through phones, laptops and other devices, and to delete information
	"if the person thinks there is a good reason to do so".
	I am puzzled as to why that detail is in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can address that. Surely such issues would more appropriately be dealt with in guidance, which can be reconsidered and amended if necessary.
	We all want good discipline in schools. A school with good discipline allows children better to learn, but it is also a safer place for children. However, I ask the Government to look again at those two measures. It appears to me that they are posturing and talking tough. Schools should protect the most vulnerable children, such as young carers and children who have been abused, but the two measures risk doing the exact opposite. Please think again.

Annette Brooke: I share the aspirations and passion of the Secretary of State to improve standards for all our children and young people, and I welcome the proposals to improve discipline in our schools, to tackle bullying of all types and to protect teachers from false allegations. Of course I also feel that head teachers need the freedom to exercise their professional judgment.
	The Bill contains some welcome proposals, and some others that merit close scrutiny at later stages. For me, the most important part of improving standards is investing in early years in order to get the foundations right. I hope that the commitment to, and funding for, free pre-school provision for disadvantaged two-year-olds will be welcomed across the House. Research shows that good quality early-childhood services have wide-ranging benefits for children, particularly disadvantaged children. That obviously helps disadvantaged children with their development, and speech and language skills, which are vital as they progress through later schooling.
	In 2010, the latest findings from the effective provision of pre-school education research project were that children aged 11 still showed benefits from attendance at high quality pre-schools, which emphasises the importance of high quality provision. With the cutbacks, however, we have to keep the focus on driving up the quality of pre-school education. I also agree with Save the Children that local authorities should be asked to publish the proportion of free early places for disadvantaged two-year-olds taken up in good or outstanding settings.
	I commend the Labour Government for achieving the universal free entitlement of up to 15 hours for three and four-year-olds, and for achieving that very high take-up. However, we still face the conflicting problems of cost, quality, quantity and sustainability-we will face those challenges throughout. It is important in early years to establish the joy of learning, so I hope that any reforms we make will encourage it throughout schooling-and through life, really.
	I want to comment, however, on a few clauses that concern me and on which I would like reassurance. I am particularly concerned about the removal of the duty to co-operate with local authorities. I have been involved in many Bill Committees concerned with legislation for children and young people, and I have always felt that schools have to be included-I think that my coalition partners felt that too. I can understand that people might be concerned about unnecessary bureaucracy for schools and colleges, and I can see a case for reviewing how that provision is working in practice, but a repeal with no obvious measure to fill the gap concerns me greatly.
	Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), I am deeply concerned about child protection. When I read through a serious case review that went back some years, I noticed that spattered throughout were cases in which teachers had not reported incidents. I worry, therefore, about taking away that duty, about the possibility of child protection being overlooked and about teachers not taking on their full responsibilities. I am also concerned about removing the duty to co-operate in respect of looked-after children, young carers, children with parents in prison and children with special needs. How can we ensure co-operation between schools, local authorities and other vital services for our vulnerable young people without something being put in place? I hope that the Minister will tell us what that something is.

Pat Glass: Does the hon. Lady agree that the number of middle-years serious case reviews in this country-those from the point of starting school until the mid-teens, when other factors come into play-has reduced significantly because of the duty on schools to co-operate?

Annette Brooke: I am afraid that I do not have the hon. Lady's professional knowledge, only that of the limited serious case reviews I have had the opportunity to see. It is vital that everybody concerned with children is looking out for their protection.
	I am equally concerned about removing the requirement on maintained schools in England to have regard to the children and young people's plans. Obviously, the provision for vulnerable children within the plans is really important. I have even greater concerns about special educational needs. The National Autistic Society points out that where services are not co-ordinated, children may undergo tens of assessments, and essential support can be delayed. Parents have reported the constant battles they face to get all the services that their children need. I believe that by working together we can reduce bureaucracy and costs, but I remain concerned about the removal of duties on schools to co-operate and to have regard to the children and young people's plans.
	During the passage of the Autism Act 2009, which was sponsored by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), and which I was pleased to support throughout, the previous Government committed themselves to ensuring that the needs of children with autism would be supported locally through children and young people's plans. How will the Government ensure that these needs are recognised and met locally?
	The shadow Secretary of State for Education challenged the belief of Liberal Democrats in local authorities. I believe strongly that local authorities should play an important strategic role in the provision of high quality education in their local areas, and that they should play a pivotal role in ensuring that other related services necessary for a child's well-being work together effectively.
	I am concerned not only about removing the duty to co-operate but about the abolition of admissions forums and the reduction in the role of the schools adjudicator. I welcome the extension of the adjudicator's role to academies, but I think that the ability to look at a whole school admissions policy when responding to a particular complaint has brought many benefits. I would hope that we all want to promote fair admissions to schools, but I seek reassurance from the Minister: if we are to reduce the role of the adjudicator and get rid of admissions forums, how are we to monitor the situation and ensure that admissions policies are administered fairly at a local level? I sincerely seek answers from him, because these are important aspects of the Bill-they are important across the board for disadvantaged young people, children with special educational needs and looked-after children.
	With those comments, I would like to emphasise that local authorities have a strategic role to play. I would not want to return to the old-style model for local authorities, but I do think that they have a role to play, and if we are to take away some of their powers, we need to know what will be put in their place.

David Blunkett: I say to the Secretary of State that on reflection nothing is ever quite as good or bad as we think it is: I was not as good a Secretary of State as I thought I was, and I have a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman is not quite as bad as I think he is-at least I hope he is not.
	The Bill is a mixture of incrementalism, with which I agree, contradiction, with which I do not, historical misinterpretation, downright old-fashioned conservatism and, with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), complete humiliation for the Liberal Democrats, who have been against most of the things in the Bill, but who now have to vote for it.
	On incrementalism, as the Secretary of State managed to get across several times in his 52-minute speech, there is clearly much in the Bill with which the Labour party can agree and which in fact we put in place. However, there are major contradictions, one of which is that the more academies and free schools we have, the less the Secretary of State's prescriptions on the curriculum, which he laid down this afternoon, will actually apply. In fact, I thought at one stage this afternoon that the Secretary of State was going to lay down a menu for all school meals that would have sweet and sour from Hong Kong, a little tortilla from Mexico and rolled herrings from Sweden, and would be dictated by the Secretary of State, so that nobody missed out on the five portions of fruit and veg required every day, because that is how he is coming across.
	There has been a complete misunderstanding of the historic mission of providing diversity and flexibility. We would all agree on having the highest quality world-class headship and top-class teaching in the classroom, but the Secretary of State went into great detail this afternoon, picking out a bit of the curriculum here and a bit there from across the world, indicating that schools would have to teach certain things to reach a particular configuration-an indigestible menu that will in fact not be manageable by most schools. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to think again. He should by all means build on the progress that has been made, learn from the mistakes that we made and transfer genuine power to heads and teachers, but he should not pretend that he is doing that when he is doing exactly the opposite.
	Another contradiction that I have noticed over the past few days is the way in which the Prime Minister has indicated that we should have a sense of identity inculcated in our schooling system and our society. I do not disagree with that-indeed, I have put that in place on a number of occasions, both in education and at the Home Office-but we cannot have that at the same time as seeking to abolish citizenship from the curriculum. If we really want to ensure that we have a sense of belonging and mutuality together, and that we understand our history, we need more than simply the teaching of historical figures, so that we can understand how our world works and how people find their place in it.
	Above all, my worry about this Bill is the sheer politicisation involved. The power placed in the hands of the Secretary of State, with the abolition of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, is a worrying factor. Let us just imagine for a moment what our media, including our beloved BBC, would have done if we had abolished the QCDA and the Training and Development Agency, and placed their powers directly in the hands of a Labour Secretary of State. It would have been on the "Today" programme every morning, with somebody, probably from Real Education-it would probably have been the former inspector, Chris Woodhead-parading themselves, saying what a dastardly thing it all was, yet here we have a Conservative Secretary of State politicising the education curriculum and the education service.
	This is not just about central administration; it is about an hegemony that can be seen throughout, with the politicisation of our life more generally. In each area-it is most heavily writ large in the case of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, matched only by the current Secretary of State for Education-the parade is of freedom and localism, while the measures are about centralisation and diktat, and this goes right across the board. I fear that as the Government preach freedom, they take away the rights, as has already been described, of those who should be driving the system, namely the parents of the children concerned. Taking away rights in respect of the adjudicator and sheer fairness, as well as the right to have one's voice heard and to get redress, will lead either to the courts or to complete disillusionment. Either way, that is a bad outcome for the education system.
	As we are dealing with a Bill that includes a real rate of interest for students under the new fees system, which will create difficulties and have a dangerous impact on access, it is worth reflecting on the fact that Cambridge university has today announced that it will be charging the full £9,000 fee, because it believes that the demolition of the contribution from the Government-the taxpayer-towards teaching makes it impossible to do otherwise. The whole Bill could have been about building on progress made, learning the lessons or drawing down on world-class experience; instead, it is about-

Mel Stride: The right hon. Gentleman refers to building on progress and mentions Cambridge. Does he feel that much progress was made when only 42 pupils who were on free school meals went to Oxford or Cambridge in the last year?

David Blunkett: I was about to say that the Bill is about those contradictions and a historical misinterpretation. What the hon. Gentleman might actually be arguing for is an increase in access and a transformation in how schools relate to Oxford and Cambridge. I was at Cambridge last week-it was the nearest thing to being at Cambridge that I have ever managed, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State. I was pleased to be there and to find not pomposity or exclusion but a desire-from the students at least-to reach out to try to persuade students and staff in schools across the country that their pupils could aspire to the best we have to offer. Incidentally, it is not always Oxford and Cambridge doing that; it is often our best universities and their departments across the country.
	I want to give time to those who have not had the privilege that I have had of contributing to education debates over the years, but I appeal to the Secretary of State and his supporters please to not reinvent the wheel. We do not need what the Business Secretary described as the perpetual Maoist revolution; instead, we can come together on sensible ways of improving the life chances of our children.

Rob Wilson: I rise to support the broad thrust of the Bill. It is unlikely to be remembered as one of the great education reform Bills-such as, arguably, the Bills of 1988 and 1944-but the sum of this Bill is probably much greater than its parts; and, if we add the changes that have already been pushed through in the Academies Act 2010, it is likely that this Government will have a claim to be remembered as a really radical reformer of education. For all the arguments that we have heard-and will hear again-against this Bill, few would disagree with the broad principles that lie behind it. Those principles are about devolving power down to schools; ensuring that exams reach the highest possible standards internationally; improving social mobility; and reducing the bureaucratic burden on schools, allowing the quality of teaching and leadership to flower, which, as Baroness Morgan, the new chair of Ofsted, has said, is the bedrock of any successful school.
	Crucially for me, what this Bill has at its core is support for teachers. I particularly welcome the measures aimed at strengthening the power of teachers to maintain school discipline. We all know how one badly behaved child can threaten the prospects of all the pupils in a class if they are not dealt with firmly and quickly. The national statistics are quite shocking. Every day, nearly 1,000 children are excluded from school for abuse or assault against staff or fellow pupils. Major assaults on staff have reached a five-year high. Good teachers are leaving the profession because of bad behaviour, while talented graduates are discouraged from coming into teaching owing to fears for their safety. Across Reading in 2008-09, we had 390 suspensions for assaults and abuse, which is equivalent to two exclusions for every school day in the last recorded year. Why should we expect teachers to put up with that? We would not expect any other profession to put up with such violence.
	Put simply, the substantial improvement in pupil attainment that all Members across this House wish to see will not be possible unless we give schools all the help that we can to set and maintain school discipline. Rules imposed by the previous, Labour Government deliberately made it more difficult for schools to expel pupils, undermining the authority of head teachers. By contrast, the measures in this Bill will ensure that we get adult authority back into schools. The fact that exclusion review panels will no longer be able to enforce the reinstatement of disruptive pupils will help to set boundaries for acceptable behaviour and ensure that teachers are not second-guessed all the time. The new powers on detentions and searching for items banned under school rules will help to give the necessary legal backing to enforce school rules whenever that is needed.
	Pupils go to school to learn. That must be our message to parents, pupils and teachers. I am confident that the long-overdue measures in the Bill will considerably reinforce teachers' authority in schools. But action on discipline on its own will not be enough to drive the vast improvement that we need to see in England's schools. The latest OECD report, the "Programme for International Student Assessment", made it clear that, under Labour, schools in England plummeted down the international league tables. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, we went from seventh to 25th in reading, from eighth to 28th in maths and from fourth to 16th in science.
	This trend is deeply worrying for our economic future. Reading was recently named in Centre for Cities' "Cities Outlook 2011" as one of the five cities best placed for a private sector-led recovery. Among the major local employers are international companies that require a highly skilled work force. In information technology, for example, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco and Symantec all have important headquarters in Reading. To ensure that those employers continue to feel that Britain is the best place in which to run major parts of their operations and to enable them to draw on the skilled work force that they need, we must take every possible step to ensure that we reverse the decline, relative to other countries, and strive to get to the top once again. To do anything else would be to sell future generations short.
	I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will require Ofqual to compare standards in England with others internationally. I also welcome the proposals to give the Government the power to require schools to make themselves accountable to international surveys.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that big international companies such as Microsoft need not only excellent PhDs but first-class technicians to support the work that they do?

Rob Wilson: I thank the Select Committee Chairman for his question. Of course technical skills will be important, and I hope that university technical colleges will play an important role in that regard. I shall return to that point in a minute.
	Rigour is absolutely essential, but we must not lose sight of the fact that not every pupil is right for university and the academic route. There has been a danger in recent weeks that all the emphasis might be placed on academic subjects and academic achievement. I have no doubt that that emphasis might be necessary temporarily while we are changing the prevailing philosophy that has surrounded education over the past decade, and, yes, we need academic rigour, but we also need alternative, equally valid and equally celebrated pathways in education. However, this should not come down to pushing some young people towards easier subjects, which is what the previous Government did. We have to find different ways of teaching and learning. I am looking forward to the findings of the review on vocational qualifications that is being led by the excellent Professor Alison Wolf. Unfortunately, they were not available in time for this debate, which was disappointing.
	I welcome the Government's support for initiatives such as university technical colleges under the academies and free schools programme. UTCs, as championed by the endlessly energetic Lord Baker and the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, offer 14 to 19-year-olds the opportunity to take a highly regarded, technically oriented course of study at a specialist college that is equipped to the highest standards. Those colleges specialise in subjects that require particular, modern equipment, and local employers, large and small, are asked to help to shape the specialist curriculum. The colleges offer a promising way of engaging young people through a different type of teaching, which is, as the name suggests, more technical in its orientation. They do not neglect the academic subjects, however, and they also help to ensure that local employers continue to have the skilled work force they need.
	I welcome the priority given to academies in the establishment of new schools. This builds on the previous Government's most successful reform programme, which in turn built on the success of city technology colleges. Academies are a proven success story, with their academic performance improving at almost twice the rate of other state schools. In 2009-10, the proportion of pupils in academies achieving the expected level at GCSE of five A* to C grades, including in English and maths, increased by 7.4 points on the previous year, compared with an increase of 4.1 points across all maintained schools. The OECD has concluded that
	"in countries where schools have greater autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend to perform better".
	Labour Members might not like the reforms, but teachers and parents in my constituency do. Three schools in Reading have already become academies, and all the secondary schools there will probably have converted by the end of next year. The number of proposals for new free schools is rising at what the Secretary of State might regard as an alarming rate. There is clearly an appetite among parents and professionals for our policies. With the extra priority being given to academies in the Bill, Reading might finally be relieved of the absurd situation in which Reading children cross into neighbouring local authority areas in search of good schools while pupils from other local authorities cross into Reading to attend what are successful but almost regional grammar schools. The quality of schools should not depend on the local authority in which they are situated. The measures in the Bill will give head teachers more freedom to determine what goes on in their schools and greater powers to drive improvement, wherever they might be. As such, I welcome these measures as a step in the right direction.

Debbie Abrahams: This Bill fails our children and young people. In spite of what the Secretary of State claims, many of its measures are grossly unfair, and I will not support it. It is full of rhetoric promising to devolve power to families and professionals, but the reality is quite different, with many parts of the Bill actually centralising power. As we have already heard, it will make it impossible for parents to challenge decisions about admissions, as well as limiting the choice of subjects that teachers can offer their students and denying communities the opportunities that can be gained by schools working together in partnership.
	From early-years provision to students aspiring to higher education, the Bill restricts educational opportunity. With one hand, it extends free entitlement for early education and child care, which I support, yet with the other it removes the need for local authorities to ensure that there is enough quality child care available in their area. The Bill proposes to allow maintained nursery schools and classes to charge for any early-years provision above the 15-hour entitlement. That, in conjunction with the early-years single funding formula that will come into force in April, will have a devastating impact on settings that currently provide free full-time places for disadvantaged children.
	More than 3,500 Sure Start children's centres were opened under Labour, offering a range of early-years, health and parental support services to more than 2.5 million children and their families. Yesterday, we heard the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) edge her way round the question of whether Sure Start children's centres would continue to remain open and to offer every child the best start in life, or whether hundreds would close, as the survey carried out by 4Children and the Daycare Trust predicts. In my own constituency, Sure Start workers are already being made redundant. It is no good saying that early-years education is important, only to take away the funding so that parents cannot access it.
	The damage that will be done to early-years education by cutting the grants for Sure Start is just the start; every parent worries about getting their child into the school of their choice. Yet these proposals will make it harder, not easier, for parents to choose what is right for their child, as free schools and academies squeeze money out of the funding for schools in their area. Similarly, the proposals on admissions will mean that parents will struggle to fight for what their child needs. Clause 34 removes the requirement for local authorities to establish an admission forum.
	Even if a child can get into the school that the parents want, the way in which the Secretary of State is narrowing the national curriculum will make it harder for children to achieve. He claims that he wants to consult parents and teachers on what should be taught, but by limiting the English baccalaureate he seems already to have made up his mind that it should be quite restrictive. How can I say to a young person from my constituency that it is more important for them to learn Latin than to be able to use a computer, especially when 10% of our gross domestic product is generated from the online economy? That simply does not make sense.
	With the axing of Building Schools for the Future and the promise that it gave to every child, including those in my constituency, of the learning environment that they need to succeed, it is most worrying that the Bill still fails to define the capital funding that will be available for free schools and academies. The so-called academy conversions are another example of co-operation and partnership working between schools being undermined by this Government, with federated schools being able to apply to become an academy without any discussion with other schools.
	My final point relates to part 8 on student finance, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) mentioned. This is like the small print of a dodgy contract: it is almost hidden, yet it proposes to remove the cap on student loan interest rates. In effect, this will allow profit to be made out of student debt. With the trebling of tuition fees, this is another example of the Government's unfairness, kicking away the ladders of opportunity from our most disadvantaged young people.

Stephen McPartland: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important education debate. My wife is a primary school teacher; my sister is a secondary school teacher; and my mother-in-law devoted her career to primary school children with special educational needs. I understand the challenges that many teachers in the school system face daily. However, that understanding does not give me the right to tell teachers how to do their jobs. That is why this Bill is so important. It gives power back to teachers and head teachers to take the decisions on how to deliver the best education for the children in their classrooms.
	Everybody remembers a good teacher, and every teacher wants to see their class grow up, develop and get the best possible start in life. Teachers love to excite and inspire children to learn so that they can enjoy a journey of lifelong learning from the primary school classroom to the boardroom. Unfortunately, many children are left behind. The highest early-year achievers from deprived backgrounds are overtaken by lower-achieving children from advantaged backgrounds by the age of seven-and the gap gets larger as the poorer students get older. For example, the primary school in my constituency with 40% of children on free school meals has only 64% achieving level 4 at key stage 2, when they are 10 or 11. The primary school in my constituency with only 4% of children on free school meals has 90% achieving level 4 at key stage 2. It is unacceptable that children from poorer backgrounds are allowed to fall further behind year after year.
	A good education is the best route out of poverty. I fully support the Bill's provisions to introduce free early-years learning for disadvantaged two-year-olds and the pupil premium. These massive investments in the poorest children in our society will help spread fairness throughout our education system and lift children out of poverty. UNICEF currently ranks the UK as 13th out of 24 OECD countries for educational inequality, but it is not possible to lift children out of poverty if we measure only poverty of income. Poverty of education is an equally important factor, as it leads to a poverty of opportunity and aspiration in later life.
	Before I briefly mention some of the opportunities provided by the Bill to transform educational achievement in Stevenage, I would like to make three quick points, to which I hope Ministers will be able to respond-in a little more detail, of course, in Committee. First, I fully support the introduction of a reading test for all six-year-olds so that parents know how their child is doing. However, I ask that an element of comprehension be included in this test. Many children and adults-including myself on many occasions-can often read a word, but without fully understanding its meaning, so they cannot use it correctly in a sentence. A little reassurance that the new reading test will have an element to demonstrate that children understand the meaning of the words they are reading would be welcome.
	Secondly, many hon. Members will speak on the huge benefits that children and schools will obtain by converting to academies. However, will the Minister consider providing a little more clarification for those education authorities concerned about their responsibilities for casual admissions throughout the school year?
	My final query is whether the pupil premium will be available to children currently in care. One of the saddest facts that I am aware of is that only 15% of children in care achieve five A to C grades at GCSE, compared with an average of 70% of all children in the UK.
	I do not want to take up too much time, as many other Members want to contribute. In my final few minutes, however, I want to highlight some of the exciting developments taking place in Stevenage as a result of the freedoms that the Bill will give to schools. Plans to convert to academies are, of course, already under way. There are also discussions going on about the possibility of what we are calling an "educational village"-a school that provided full through-schooling for children from the age of four to 19. As one head teacher put it, it will allow for controlling the supply chain of the children coming through, so that the standards of the children are well known and can be developed. It should provide greater understanding of what the children are likely to achieve later in life.
	My local college is looking at developing a vocational school for 14 to 19-year-olds, which is also called a university technical college. My constituency is also fortunate in having within it the headquarters of the Institution of Engineering and Technology, which I know is working with university technical colleges throughout the country to develop those schemes.
	The most exciting prospect for me is that the Stevenage educational trust has been established this month. This is a charity set up by local head teachers, which is developing the idea of taking on the extended services that they consider important to educational provision in Stevenage. My ultimate aim for this charity-and, I hope, the aim of the head teachers-is that it will take over the responsibilities that will be devolved from the local education authority and allow solutions that are more focused on the needs of the children in a single town rather than across a widespread geographical area. It will be able to have an educational psychologist looking after the children in a particular small area rather than on a county basis.
	Finally, I would like to end by quoting Patrick Marshall, the head teacher of Marriotts secondary school in Stevenage, who told me:
	"The Government's new reforms for education have meant that I have more freedom to target specific resources to the young people and families I know are in most need. My accountability is now transferred to my local community rather than centralised targets, which have in the past dictated the delivery of services at a local level".
	I very much look forward to voting for this Bill, which promises to lift educational attainment for the poorest children in my area.

Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to follow the measured speech of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). Let me say first that I support many aspects of the Bill and will not join my colleagues in opposing it tonight. A number of issues can be clarified and corrected in Committee. One important issue that I feel should be looked at again is the whole question of support staff, who are so important in any school. I am not sure that the issue has been looked at carefully enough. It is the sort of matter that should be probed in Committee.
	I welcome the abolition of the Training and Development Agency and the General Teaching Council for England. I welcome the fact that we can finally get back to having a Secretary of State who has to take responsibility and has to be accountable to this Parliament for what happens in education. I also welcome the fact that the Bill makes it clear that trainee teachers who do not meet the required standards should face termination of employment. As I said earlier, for too long we have tolerated poor performance in the teaching profession and we have been afraid to be honest to those who simply are not good enough. For me, there is no more important profession than that of educating the next generation. We need to foster a culture of excellence, not of complacency. As many have pointed out, we would not tolerate a pilot who had a questionable record in flying and we would not go to a doctor who always gets a diagnosis wrong. Why, then, should we accept a teacher who we know does not deliver for her children?
	There are many good schools in my constituency, but one in particular has always taken that sort of approach to teacher training-the Durand school, now the Durand academy. Durand spent years fighting the local authority, Lambeth council because it refused to accept anything less than great teaching for its school. For more than 16 years, the school has had innovative social entrepreneurship under its belt, under the inspirational leadership of the executive head, Greg Martin and the head, Mark McLaughlin. It has gone from being a failing school to an outstanding one. It has built on-site accommodation for teachers who are new to London; it has a health club with special rates for parents; and it has truly self-helped.
	Durand has been creative in showing how a school can use its property assets for social good, and I would encourage other schools to do the same. Through its own endeavours it bought 19 acres in Sussex, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). It was formerly the site of a grade II listed private school and then a local education authority special school. It is the most amazing of locations, where Durand wants to open the first truly free-of-charge state boarding school, offering the best possible educational experience to inner-city teenagers.
	The intake of the Durand primary school in Stockwell is extremely diverse: 95% of children come from black or ethnic minority backgrounds; more than 50% are on free school meals; and more than 40% live in overcrowded households. Despite those statistics, the quality of attainment, behaviour and attitude at the school is impeccable. It is an outstanding school, which has proved time and again that a low-income background need not mean low expectations for children. It is built on hugely important leadership.
	Children leave Durand at the age of 11, and many subsequently fail to achieve five good GCSEs. Last year children leaving Durand were transferred to 20 different secondary schools, many outside the borough and many of poor quality. It is to be hoped that at the end of the current school year, if the right decisions are made and if the system proves successful, children will stay on in the middle school and, at the age of 13, will board between Monday morning and Friday afternoon. That will enable them to retain links with their community, and will allow their families-many of whom live in overcrowded accommodation-to see them receive the best possible education while also benefiting from the extra time that boarding schools provide for sport and the other extracurricular activities that are so rarely found in inner-city areas such as mine.
	Parents want choice. They want the best, and they do not see why the best should be available, or offered, only to those who can pay or who come from the most affluent areas. That cannot be right. Labour Members need to be honest. For a long time we have espoused the benefits of academies as one part of a broad system of education. Academy status has given proven successful schools such as Durand the freedom that they need in order to develop education and tailor it in accordance with their intake, helping each and every child to reach its full potential. Parents want those options: they recognise that one size does not fit all, and that local authorities do not have all the answers. There have been many struggles involving my local authority, which wanted to impose a straitjacket on its schools to ensure that they were all the same.
	As a former grammar school girl, I feel strongly that my party must not lose ownership of aspiration. In the past month, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) hosted an event in the House on behalf of Progress, which reached the same conclusion. For a number of years many of my hon. Friends supported the views of Lord Adonis of Camden Town, and we are familiar with his views on much of the Bill. My constituent Katharine Birbalsingh-who may be better known for speaking at a Conservative party conference but who is a brilliant teacher, as will be clear to anyone who meets and talks to her-has shown the same willingness to believe that every child can aspire to and, indeed, reach the top. I am proud that she is my constituent, because what she says and writes is based entirely on the reality of what is happening in many inner-city schools.
	We must be honest, and reflect the views of all involved in education and teaching rather than just those of the unions. Theirs is an important voice, but it is not the only one. I want us to speak for the family of the child from Myatt's Fields estate in Stockwell who wants to reach for the stars-for the family who want for their child the options that are available to a child from the richest family in the land. I want us to speak up for the silent majority, who are often without a voice.
	If the Education Bill helps schools like Durand which pride themselves on great teaching to become a model for others to follow, I welcome it; if the Education Bill helps schools like Durand which insist on good discipline to enforce that discipline, I welcome it; and if the Education Bill helps schools like Durand which want to open a new secondary state boarding school for disadvantaged children to deliver that, I welcome it, and urge its adoption.

Jessica Lee: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to speak in this important debate. I shall speak as briefly as possible so that other can contribute, but, if time allows, I shall touch on the subjects of early-years provision, academies and apprenticeships.
	Why is early-years provision so important at this time? In my view it is a critical element in the Bill, because evidence increasingly suggests that it will become more crucial than ever in determining outcomes. A couple of weeks ago, in a debate initiated by Government Members-in the context of reports presented by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)-the House benefited from speeches that demonstrated a wealth of experience in relation to early-years provision and early intervention in particular.
	I believe that in providing 15 hours a week for disadvantaged children, the Government are taking a stand and making an active contribution. As a child protection lawyer, I encountered many cases whose outcomes jeopardised children and put them at risk. The situation was very delicate in such cases, and a central issue was what would happen to the children during those early years. Problems arose in relation to young children's attachments to carers and other adults, which, in my view, were likely to determine their long-term educational and socio-economic prospects. I applaud that aspect of the Bill, and was reassured to hear from the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that the Opposition supported it.
	The provisions for academies, which amend provisions in the Academies Act 2010, offer some schools an exciting and positive future. They may not be appropriate for every school in Erewash, but we are fortunate in that three of our schools are seeking academy status and in each I see strong leadership, committed governors, and members of a school unit working to achieve better outcomes for children not just in their own schools, but in all the schools in their community.

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend has made an important point in saying that such provision is not appropriate in all circumstances. Does she agree that when a school has made a decision either to become an academy or not to do so, we should support that decision and support the school's governors? On the front page of a local paper in my constituency, a Labour councillor in Goole was quoted as saying that a school that had decided to become an academy would not take children from council estates.

Jessica Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend-of course we should support a school that makes that important decision, if it is right for the school. As I have said, I have seen great leadership from head teachers throughout my constituency who, having made their decision, have worked to gain the support of the whole school unit: parents, governors and the local community.
	At Long Eaton school, which has perhaps travelled furthest towards achieving academy status, I have seen leadership and encouragement on the part of the head teacher and staff. I have been concerned by the distribution by trade unions of leaflets containing scare stories and negative comments about what the school has been trying to achieve, but I believe that their efforts have been unsuccessful. Now the scare stories have started again in regard to Bennerley school in Ilkeston, and I support the actions of the head teacher, the staff, the pupils and the school community in standing firm. If their decision is right for them, they should not be bullied by unions or anyone else.
	I want to mention a third school, Kirk Hallam community technology and sports college. It is also in Ilkeston, in a more socially and economically deprived part of my constituency. For decades, it did not receive the investment and attention it deserved-and it has to be said that Derbyshire county council was Labour-controlled for 28 years. I am now asking, very clearly and vocally, for a level of support and investment in Erewash from the county council and the local council that it did not have in the past.
	My constituency has a proud history of manufacturing, furniture making, engineering and high-tech companies, many of which have taken on apprenticeships over the years. Apprenticeships is a topic that comes up at every meeting of the Erewash Partnership, the local business partnership in which I play a role. There is a real thirst for apprenticeships, and enthusiasm for what the Government are doing to back them. I was interested to learn that 190 different types of apprenticeship can be taken, which is more than I thought. Giving young people this opportunity and variety for their future is extremely important.
	The Bill emphasises prioritising funding for young people who have already secured an apprenticeship. That is important, as it will allow us to move forward both with the commitment to have more apprenticeships-which is, of course, the right thing to do-and with making sure the practical steps are in place so that that can be achieved.
	I will vote with enthusiasm for the Bill. This is a positive day for young people in this country. I think that taking this step will enable us to go forward, and I hope we get as much cross-party support as possible in order to bring all these positive ideas to fruition.

Geraint Davies: This Bill is part of a Government strategy to turn away from the direction in developing education that the previous Government took. The previous Government's system was founded on the principle of the equal opportunity to succeed-that is rooted in the comprehensive system-which focused on supporting failing schools in deprived areas and providing some choice and flexibility. It achieved remarkable success in GCSE results and standards.
	The current Government want to shift resources-in an economic climate in which ever fewer resources are available-from the most deprived areas to those already achieving or to new schools in middle-class areas. In addition, their system will centralise power in the hands of the Secretary of State sitting in Whitehall to make decisions over the future of schools he has never seen or will never care to visit. It will undermine communities and their power to influence local intervention in schools via their democratically elected councils, and replace parent choice with head teacher choice as schools achieve growing power over selection and there is shrinking accountability to parents.
	Meanwhile, the ability to plan for aggregate levels of special educational needs in an area will be undermined as that will be unknown, when what we need is, for example, the screening of all two-year-olds for speech and language difficulties in order to assess the level of need and to target early so that the system is cost-effective. We have yet to see the plans for SEN as this Bill has been introduced ahead of them.
	What we know instead is that schools in middle-class areas will be empowered to select parents who can make a donation to the school and to avoid pupils who might incur disproportionate costs as the system for appeal has been weakened. Unfortunately therefore, the marketised system that will emerge will naturally adjust to create sink schools, risking the creation of dumping grounds of socially and financially disadvantaged children.
	The aggregate impact of these market forces will be for the school system to exaggerate and amplify social Darwinism, and to punish people for being poor by kicking away the ladder of opportunity so that society overall suffers by being less productive, more unequal and more divided. When Britain most needs a society that is strong and united, the Lib Dem-Tories are unleashing market forces in education that will create an England that is weak and divided.
	Alongside this, the Sure Start infrastructure for early intervention is being systematically cut so pupils from less well-off backgrounds will enter a worse school, worse prepared. Meanwhile, in sharp contrast, across the border in Wales, despite the Lib Dem-Tory bid to reduce the financial bloodstream to the comprehensive education system, the flame of hope for fair and equal education still burns bright. Fortunately, as NHS spending is not ring-fenced in Wales and the £3 billion cost of restructuring the NHS in England will not be wasted in Wales, we will have money to invest in education and to give all our children-not just the few-the life chances they deserve, with local authorities charged with streamlined strategic responsibilities to ensure holistic success and efficiency, with schools accountable and with a refreshed focus on leadership achievements and transparency, and with a new commitment to ensuring money meant for schools is spent on schools and not for other purposes.
	The appalling waste we will see in England, of letting poorer schools go to the wall and fail and close, will still be avoided in Wales by early intervention that is locally driven, and with parents empowered through local democracy, not threatened by the distant foreign voice of Whitehall muttering the drumbeat of a one-size-fits-all curriculum. Local head teachers will not be given a free rein to run schools without parent power or be forced to stick to the new Tory curriculum diet of Billy-Bunter Britain that is being prescribed. In England, in education as in the NHS, we see the arrival of a market-led system, the withdrawal of democracy, and the distant diktat of the Secretary of State, with unaccountable schools competing to attract the most well-heeled parents and the least expensive children, who will be fed an intellectually grey diet that may keep them above their neighbours locally but will relegate them below their neighbours internationally.
	This ill-thought-out patchwork of measures threatens to cast the children of England adrift from the firm anchorage of hope and opportunity to float into the uncertain and treacherous waters of growing inequality and underachievement. The Bill is a rag-bag of right-wing ideas dreamt up in haste, and threatens to undermine the future of a united and prosperous England. It is incomplete both in terms of SEN and apprenticeship provision, and it fails to acknowledge the withdrawal of support from Sure Start and will lead to us ending up with a two-tier system in respect of local authority access. All this underlines the case for Wales to avoid importing this half-baked Tory-Lib Dem plan for ruining education. Thankfully, the only good aspect of it is that it will encourage the people of Wales to vote Labour this May.

Dan Rogerson: It is a pleasure to follow such a vivid speech, describing- [Interruption.] Well, it contained a lot of imagery, but it described an outcome that I do not think many people outside this House who commented on the Bill will recognise. There are undoubtedly concerns and areas that require clarification, but while the language of the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) used was very colourful, it was, perhaps, not entirely accurate. We will look back in a few years and see whether the vision he set out has come to pass. The hon. Gentleman's party colleague, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), had a more generous view of both the intentions behind the Bill and the outcomes its provisions might produce.
	I join other Members in welcoming the addition to the Bill of a commitment to extending early-years provision for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That will have a huge impact. It will be tied to the pupil premium, which was a Liberal Democrat commitment. I greatly welcome the fact that the coalition is focusing on trying to raise the attainment of those from disadvantaged backgrounds, as the Secretary of State set out. I also hope that this encouragement to drive up the take-up of places in early-years education will lead to more investment and therefore greater provision as well. Other hon. Members have mentioned training and, by setting out greater investment in that sector, we hope to encourage more people to participate in delivering it and to improve it.
	The issue of bureaucracy has been raised. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who is no longer in his place, started his speech by stating his family's educational credentials. Unlike some hon. Members, I have never been a teacher, but both my parents were teachers and my wife is a teacher. I did work for a while in a teacher training college and I have been a school governor, so I have seen close up the reams of guidance and prescription issued by the Department under the previous Government. Therefore, I very much welcome the fact that at last we have a Bill that puts at its heart cutting aside a lot of that and allowing schools to get on with teaching, because that is what teachers want to do.
	The Government have already addressed issues such as financial management in schools and the self-assessment documentation, and in this Bill we are looking at the school profile. Those measures together deal with a huge amount of the reading through that has to be done. They also address the quantity of work that head teachers, governors and staff have to do to send back pieces of paper or to hang on to filing cabinets full of paper that do not achieve a huge amount-or a proportionate amount, given the time involved in doing that work-for the pupils in their school or for the wider community.
	The Bill also seeks to abolish some organisations; we have heard a little today about the General Teaching Council, the Training and Development Agency for Schools and the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency. The Young People's Learning Agency could have been mentioned too. Those organisations have undoubtedly performed a role, but it is right for the Government to challenge how effective they have been in discharging their roles. If it is at all possible, it is right to do that work far more efficiently.
	The hon. Member for Vauxhall talked about accountability, which is also important. She made a good point, because I recall discussions about the Bill that set up the Infrastructure Planning Commission and I felt that it was all about taking tricky decisions away from the Secretary of State and giving them to an unelected body to consider. So I very much welcome the decisions that this Government have taken across the legislation that they are introducing to ensure that Government accountability is included and that the buck stops with them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made an excellent and measured contribution, in which she rightly set out some questions for the Government. She also mentioned bullying, which has been mentioned by all parties in election manifestos and so on. It is therefore welcome that the Government are dealing with discipline issues and are tackling bullying, so that teachers can have the confidence that they will be supported when they try to intervene to ensure that they get the discipline that they want in their classes and so that parents can be reassured too.
	The speech made by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) laid into the issue of apprenticeships. He tried to pretend that the approach that had been adopted towards the end of the previous Parliament was going to deliver a huge number of apprenticeships. A responsibility had been placed to deliver those places, but we need employers to come forward with them. There is far more clarity in our arrangement because the funding and support is in place, and it is then up to people to get out and secure those places locally.
	My questions for the Minister focus on school governance. We need to explore in greater detail the proposals for governing bodies to alter their own structures and remove some categories of governor. I have concerns about that with regard to local authority governors and staff governors, so I hope that we can hear more justification of that proposal.
	The Association of School and College Leaders has said that it welcomes the exclusions proposals that will ensure that teachers will able to take action to remove pupils who are having a disruptive effect on their classmates. However, we must make sure that safeguards are in place. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that the Bill provides that decisions on exclusions must recognise the position of children with special educational needs, particularly those who have autism. Could similar sorts of rights be put in place for looked-after children too, given the pressures that they are under and the disruptions that life has inflicted on them?
	The measures on providing an independent careers service are also welcome. They will allow people to be confident that the advice being given is in the best interests of the young person. In most cases, it has been, but we have all heard examples of people being pushed to stay on at a particular school in the interests of the school, rather than the young person. The independence contained in the measures is good, but I hope that the Government will be considering transition arrangements to ensure that as we move to the new system, the experience that has been gained in providing careers advice will not be lost.

John Hayes: I will indeed look at that.

Dan Rogerson: In conclusion, we need to explore a number of questions in Committee and on Report that have been raised by hon. Members. I welcome the comments of those who have said that by giving the Bill a Second Reading we can develop and make progress on a number of aspects, such as early-years provision, apprenticeships and giving teachers and schools the room to get on with teaching, which is what they want to do.

Catherine McKinnell: It may not surprise many right hon. and hon. Members to learn that I want to discuss part 7 of the Bill, which covers post-16 education and training. More specifically, I want to discuss clause 65 on "The apprenticeship offer". This is particularly appropriate given that we are in national apprenticeship week, as the shadow Secretary of State said. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning and his shadow counterpart are in their places.
	I have been a passionate campaigner on the importance of apprenticeships for both businesses and workers, and for the economy and for wider society. They provide a structured career path for young and old people alike, while helping to develop the skills that UK plc will need if it is going to compete effectively on the global scale. It is for that reason that I introduced my Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill, which seeks to increase the number of apprenticeship places available across the country by introducing a requirement that when awarding large contracts all public authorities must ensure that successful bidders demonstrate a firm commitment to providing skills training, wherever possible and appropriate, and, crucially, apprenticeship places.
	I am delighted that my Bill is to have its Second Reading debate this Friday, during national apprenticeships week, and that it has garnered widespread support from organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the TUC, the North East chamber of commerce, Unison, Unite, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Association of Colleges, the Federation of Master Builders, the Electrical Contractors Association and the GMB, and indeed from the former Government enterprise champion, Lord Sugar, to name but a few. It is a simple measure that will help to increase the number of apprenticeships available. It will ensure that employers do their bit and are on an equal footing when bidding for public contracts as the Bill will reward those with good practice and encourage the others to do more. I therefore urge the Government to do all they can to secure the Bill's passage through the House or to take on the ideas and proposals in their own policies.
	I was also delighted to welcome my own 16-year-old apprentice to her first day in my Newcastle office. Charlene Curry, a business administration apprentice from Newbiggin Hall, in my constituency, has been placed in my office by the excellent North East Apprenticeship Company, which works hard on a not-for-profit basis to marry businesses with willing apprentices, with great success. I wish to take this opportunity to urge all right hon. and hon. Members to make every effort to accommodate an apprentice in their office, if they have the ability to do so.
	At this stage, it is useful to take stock and acknowledge that the previous Labour Government had a clear, unwavering commitment to boosting and expanding apprenticeships. As I have said, this is national apprenticeship week, which the previous Government launched in 2008 to celebrate and promote the important role that apprenticeships play. Under Labour, the apprenticeship system was lifted from its knees by a Government who invested money, status and opportunities in apprenticeships for young and older people alike.
	In 1996-97, the final year of the previous Tory Government, only 65,000 people started an apprenticeship. By 2009-10, that figure had risen to almost 280,000, a massive and highly commendable increase which comfortably exceeded Labour's original target of 250,000 starts.

John Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine McKinnell: I was about to pay tribute to the Minister's efforts in that regard, but he can intervene later if I do not cover the matter sufficiently.
	Labour increased the number of apprenticeship starts from the planned 200,000 to 279,000 in the final year alone, an increase which contrasts with the current Government's ambition of funding an extra 50,000, 75,000 or 100,000 apprenticeship places over the next four years-an announcement was made yesterday, and I hope that the figure keeps rising. Either way, the target is unambitious over four years when we consider demand and the obstacles that young people now face in trying to stay on at school or carry on to higher education.
	Labour's commitment to expanding apprenticeships included the introduction of a statutory apprenticeship offer as part of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which required the Skills Funding Agency to secure an apprenticeship place for all suitably qualified 16 to 18-year-olds by 2013. Part 7 of the Bill seeks to repeal that duty and replace it with a requirement to fund apprenticeship training for those people who have already secured an apprenticeship place. I do not doubt that the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning shares my passion for promoting the importance of apprenticeships, but I am concerned about the signal that that repeal will send out. Should we not be encouraging all young people to think that an apprenticeship is at least an option for them?
	Yesterday, City and Guilds published the results of a study showing that employers actually find apprentices to be more valuable than graduates. What impact does the Minister believe that taking away the guarantee of an apprenticeship will have on the number of young people seeking and successfully acquiring apprenticeship places, particularly among those from disadvantaged backgrounds?

John Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because I know that time is short. I have three points. First, we warmly welcome her attempts to link procurement and apprenticeships. Regardless of whether we can support the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill, we will take action to support the intentions behind it. Secondly, on the numbers, we will grow apprenticeships on the back of the progress that Labour made, which I acknowledge, to an unprecedented level-we have put the funding in place for at least 105,000 more apprenticeships. Thirdly, we have changed the offer because we want to ensure that everyone who secures an apprenticeship place with an employer is funded. That is my commitment to the House tonight, which is reinforced in the legislation.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for his response to those queries.
	At a time when we are facing the highest recorded level of youth unemployment, with one fifth of young people being out of work nationally, rising to one third in the north-east, should we not be putting every measure in place to ensure that our young people have the opportunities to gain skills and qualifications? It is creditable that the Minister has managed to secure funding for an additional 30,000 apprenticeship places for 16 to 18-year-olds, but does he genuinely believe that those extra places will even come close to meeting demand?
	Recently published figures show that BT received 24,000 applications for only 400 places on its apprenticeship programme this year. PricewaterhouseCoopers has reported that applications to its school leavers entry scheme doubled to 800 in the past two years, while Network Rail has said that it received 4,000 entries for around 200 apprenticeship places this year. I would be grateful if the Minister took the opportunity provided by this debate and national apprenticeship week to clarify how removing the statutory guarantee will help the Government to increase the number of young people starting apprenticeships and the further measures that his Government intend to take to guarantee the expansion of both youth and adult apprenticeships across the UK.

Andrew Turner: One of the greatest failures of the previous Government, who started with great hope, was their failure to improve the performance of schools. We know that the performance of schools in international league tables, which is measured by the programme for international student assessment, fell from where we-the Conservatives-left it in 1997.
	The Labour Government promised that their three main priorities in government would be "Education, education, education". The aim was clearly for schools' performance to get better and, more importantly, for schools to get better, but the problem was that performance was getting worse all the time. While Ministers here insisted all was well, every external audit proved the opposite.
	Let me illustrate how well we were doing under Sir John Major's Government and how much worse the statistics were by 2009. The first PISA assessment took place in 2000, three years after the Labour Government had won power. In it, the UK ranked seventh in reading, eighth in maths and fourth in science. In the 2009 assessment, the UK ranked 25th in reading, 28th in maths and 16th in science. I confess that there are many ways to read the statistics, as the PISA readings were collected over a long period and any one set of results used in the tables may have been taken over a period of five years, but the striking thing is that the United Kingdom was, using the average of the three results, in sixth place in 2000, and yet we were in 23rd place in 2009.
	Opposition Members may argue about the finer details, but to any objective observer it is obvious that the UK has tumbled down the international league tables. Canada, New Zealand and Australia now occupy much higher positions, around sixth, seventh and ninth. Their positions are statistically significant above the OECD average. I would expect the United Kingdom to occupy a similar position, but we are ranked 23rd. We are only around average on the majority of indicators, although we are a little above average for science. The OECD says that average performance needs to be judged against a range of socio-economic indicators, most of which give the UK an advantage. The problem is not the money that we spend on education-only seven OECD countries spend more per student than the UK-but the way in which it is being spent. The best performing countries are China, South Korea, Finland and Hong Kong. The UK is now below Ireland and the United States, which, to make it clear, are pretty average.
	To be fair, the problem was clear to us even in the 1980s, when from a good position we were starting to get worse. We needed to slow down that slide in performance, and there were two ways in which schools could improve. One was greater independence for all schools, which was called local management and which was reasonably successful in many areas. The other was giving schools greater freedom-grant-maintained schools. Seventeen schools became grant maintained in the first group in 1989. In 1994, 554 secondary schools-about 15% of the total-enjoyed the freedom to make the right decisions for their school and their pupils that grant-maintained status gave them. The results in those schools were well above average, and grant-maintained status did what needed to be done for individual schools in individual areas.
	Finally, I draw hon. Members' attention to small schools, which have also benefited from having more freedom. The smallest grant-maintained school was Kettleshulme in Cheshire: it had 12 pupils, but the number grew to 19 by the time it was grant-maintained. It was already a successful small school and after it achieved grant-maintained status it became very successful. The head teacher at that time was Allan Ramsdale-Capper, who is now one of my constituents. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and to all the other headmasters and mistresses of grant-maintained schools who have done so much to improve the education of their pupils. Large schools are often very good, but I want to make it clear that small ones are equally successful and that their position does not need a huge influx of money to keep them going. I believe that decisions are best made by parents, head teachers and governors. The OECD comments that
	"the international achievement gap is imposing on the United Kingdom economy an invisible but recurring economic loss".
	That needs to be addressed urgently.
	When grant-maintained schools were created in the '90s, they were successful, and it was the freedoms they were given that made them so. I should like to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education that I am sure that free schools and academies will be successes given time, although they will not need that much time. They will be our successes and, most importantly, the successes of parents up and down the country.

Barry Sheerman: I think that all hon. Members who are interested in education struggle with the challenges of which we are all aware. We want every child in our country to fulfil their full potential and to garner from education the very best, from which many of us have benefited. I had a very happy educational experience and I wanted the same for my children and now for my growing number of grandchildren. We all want that, but the truth is that we are not doing well enough.
	When Labour won the general election in 1997, I could not have been happier with the commitment of our young, new Prime Minister to education, education, education. I watched the performance of Labour Governments for 10 years as the Chair of the Select Committee on Education-indeed, it had three names in that time-and I saw them make tremendous efforts to raise standards and to innovate in order to do so. A great deal was achieved in that time through innovation, new ideas and confronting the truth that many of our young people had been given a pretty bad deal-and not only in the centres of great deprivation. When the Committee looked at Sure Start centres, we had to consider the fact that if one circles the areas of greatest poverty, one does not find the most children in poverty because most of them live outside those areas. That is why we had to have 3,500 children's centres instead of the 500 originally envisaged. There is always this challenge of getting through to the most deprived families and constituents, and that is difficult for any Government.
	I am going to be honest: much of the Bill could have come from the previous Labour Administration. I think some colleagues would agree with that. I shall not vote against its Second Reading because I want to make a plea. The longer I chaired the Select Committee, the more I realised that much of what really works comes when we have agreement across the House. One can see that from the history of educational progress in our country. It was true of the Education Act 1944, of the Callaghan speech that was taken up by Ken Baker and of later legislation.
	We often throw across the Chamber allegations that the other side is being ideological-those on the Government side say it about the Opposition and vice versa-but I cannot find any ideology in this Bill. Indeed, if I were to vote against it, it would be because it is a bit of a mish-mash. There are some very good things in it, but there are other things that I do not really like and want to know much more about. I do not like the fact that the Government want to get rid of the Training and Development Agency for Schools, as that would be a retrograde step. I do not agree with what they have said about schools adjudicators or with giving parents less chance to challenge admissions policies and get them changed. The Select Committee worked very hard to persuade the former Government to change the powers of adjudicators and allow them to be called in more easily because we found that many schools, such as faith schools, were evading their responsibilities in terms of fairer admissions policies.
	I want to be able to vote for the Bill and I am not going to vote against it today because I want to see whether we can improve it in Committee. However, I get very irritated when I hear about PISA studies and TIMSS-trends in international mathematics and science study-tables and about the OECD. I remember when the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and I went to Paris to talk to the OECD about the PISA study. The truth is that many such evaluations are quite flaky and have changed dramatically over the years. When I chaired the Select Committee I was constantly saying that I wanted our country to be compared with other countries such as ours-large, populous countries with high migration and high turnover in inner urban schools. The United States, Germany and France, and perhaps Italy and Spain, would be fairer comparisons for the UK. On that measure, our education system has improved dramatically in the past 13 years. I do not believe the PISA studies showing a cataclysmic decline: I do not believe that is true and I do not think that Ministers believe it either. Let us have some good sense.
	When do we get good policy? As you will know from a previous incarnation, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is when it is based on evidence, good research and good experience in similar countries. It is not about pulling off what the Hong Kongs and Chinas of the world have done-or Alberta, which became a country earlier today. Let us learn from countries such as ours, but let us also have high-quality expertise and research. Too many Education Departments are not good enough and they should be better. There should be much more research on why we do not get better results.

Andrew Turner: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that PISA put Britain at sixth or seventh in 2000 but at 23rd in 2009, whereas countries such as Canada have stayed at basically the same level?

Barry Sheerman: I take the point, but the basis of those tables has changed.
	When all parties have concentrated on what works and on good research, we have come up with early-years education-children's centres and Sure Start. I applaud the idea of reaching out to two-year-olds-the Government are right about that-but not in the context of changing the commitment to Sure Start children's centres. That is good policy based on research and what is really happening.
	What if we used the same holistic method as the Dutch to tackle those not in education, employment or training, and tied it to the welfare system? In Holland, people up to the age of 27 can get no welfare benefit unless they are in training and learning the Dutch language. Why not link welfare to training here? Why not make everyone on benefits do something to improve their training, skills and employability and to learn the English language?
	One of the problems that we do not consider in this country is the effect on the ability of families to support their children in schools if they have no English language themselves, the television is on in the home language, and then we suffer deprivation in our inner cities. We see a new form of poverty, not the poverty that was found in the shipbuilding and mining areas. The new kind of poverty is based on high turnover. In schools in my inner town, 40% of the children in front of the school today will not be there next year. None of the political parties has examined the new poverty in sufficient detail and come up with policies to deal with it.
	Too many people in education policy want to live in a mythical golden age that never existed, but also want some ideological determination of what happens. I was taught by Michael Oakeshott, the greatest Conservative philosopher of the 20th century, who believed in the pursuit of intimations. Education policy is best when we pursue the intimations, and very often when we do that across parties. I will not vote against Second Reading tonight.

Caroline Dinenage: I support the words of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who made some excellent and even-handed points. No one will be surprised that I support the Bill, not least because it signals a shift of power away from bureaucrats and quangos and back towards those who run our schools.
	For too long teachers and head teachers have been dictated to by Government and overloaded with complex bureaucracy and endless initiatives. How can it be that head teachers spend 15 hours a week on unnecessary paperwork-15 hours that do not raise a single teaching standard, improve a single result or support a single pupil?
	I want to speak on one particular topic today-Ofsted. We must not undervalue Ofsted, for it does an important job in identifying the quality of schools and informing parents about the choices. However, we should be under no illusions that Ofsted is perfect. There are currently 27 separate headings under which schools are marked during inspections-27 headings, but, as one school told me, the inspectors did not speak to a single child during their visit.
	Under the Bill, Ofsted inspections will focus on four key areas-the achievement of pupils, the quality of teaching, leadership and management, and the behaviour and safety of pupils at the school. In today's society it is far too easy to judge a pupil by an exam result or a school by a rigid and complex Ofsted report. The results tell only a part, never the whole story.
	Over the past few months, I have visited on average two schools a week. I have 39 schools in my constituency, so I still have a way to go. I am extremely fortunate that the diversity of my constituency gives me a good insight into the challenges that schools face. Not only do I have some schools in nice middle class areas, but I have others that are situated in areas with significant welfare dependency and high levels of multiple deprivation. In some of my schools well over half the children are on free school meals, more than 75% live with just one of their birth parents, and more than 10% are under child protection measures because of neglect or abuse.
	Many children experience challenging home lives, sometimes with parents who have drug or alcohol problems or mental health issues. These kids, from an early age, have to get themselves up in the morning, feed themselves, dress themselves and get themselves to school, perhaps with a younger sibling, while their mum might still be in bed. For these children, school is their stability, their comfort zone, a safe haven where they know what to expect and what is expected of them, where they will be secure, nurtured, listened to and cared for, where their needs are put first.
	The schools that take children from extremely vulnerable backgrounds often have to do much more than educate them. Often they have to heal them, deal with their issues and address their needs, and give them so much more than numeracy and literacy. Those that are doing this successfully are, to me, the very best schools and the very best teachers of all. The problem with the current system is that after this incredible level of achievement, they might still get only a satisfactory Ofsted report because they have not attained the same high level of results as schools in more affluent areas.
	That must be incredibly demoralising for the amazing teachers and governors who pour so much of themselves into supporting the most vulnerable children. What incentive is there for more able teachers and heads to take jobs in the most challenging of schools, which should surely the most rewarding of roles, when they know that all their effort could be seen as merely satisfactory?
	Reforms to Ofsted inspections will help to prevent that. Of course grades and results are important, but there is hope that for the first time it will be more than the end result that is considered. It will be possible to achieve good Ofsted reports in certain circumstances by demonstrating the true progress that has been made, measuring achievement from where the school started, not just where it ends up. Ofsted must be more sophisticated in recognising the social justice agenda, not just performance levels.
	In many schools, the move away from mainstream academic subjects such as modern languages could be laid partly at the door of Ofsted. The constant focus on performance levels and grades achieved, irrespective of the subject matter, means that curriculums have been altered to please Ofsted. In my constituency there are senior schools in which no one is studying a modern language, yet classes are crammed with pupils studying for a GCSE in dance. We will become a nation of people who can glide sure-footedly through the streets of the cities of the world, but unable to communicate with a soul who lives there.
	The Bill removes the requirement for Ofsted to inspect every school, enabling more resources to be concentrated on the underperforming schools. This will lead to more targeted inspections, so schools in need of support will get the help that they require to progress and show that progress is being made. Above all, the Bill sends parents the message that allowing every child to flourish and be the very best that they can is at the heart of Government thinking. It sends heads the message that the Government prize educating more than ticking boxes and filling forms, and it sends teachers the message that the Government value teachers and understand that nothing is more important than attracting great people into teaching. That is why I will support the Bill.

Jenny Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on her brief speech. I shall endeavour to be brief also. I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I agreed with much of what he said.
	I want to take colleagues on a journey to a not particularly closely examined part of the Bill, which deals with children's trusts. Before I do that, I want to say something about social mobility. The Secretary of State often speaks about social mobility in a way that might lead people to think that he understood it. However, he refers only to statistics on free school meal take-up and admission to Oxford and Cambridge. In my constituency, Darlington, five or six years ago, there were one or two wards where a young woman of 18 or 19 would be more likely to be a mother than to be a student in higher education. I can report with great pride that that is no longer the case. Teenage pregnancies are reducing and participation in higher education in those wards is improving. That needs to be taken into account when we discuss social mobility in the House.
	It is not right to portray Labour as the party that resists academies and is against them. Academies are a Labour initiative.  [Interruption.] Alan Milburn, indeed. I am pleased that the remaining schools in my constituency that are not yet academies will become academies. I support them in that and I am pleased to see them aspiring to take that step.
	Part 5 removes the duty on local authorities to establish children's trusts. Let me remind the House of the origins of children's trusts. In 2001 Lord Laming wrote a report commissioned by the former Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), and the former Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn. The report examined the murder of Victoria Climbié in north-west London. One of the key findings was that the various agencies that should have the safeguarding of children at the forefront of their minds were not able to protect that eight-year-old girl.
	I quote from Lord Laming's recommendations:
	"Each local authority with social services responsibilities must establish a Committee of Members for Children and Families with lay members drawn from the management committees of each of the key services. This Committee must ensure the services to children and families are properly co-ordinated and that the inter-agency dimension of this work is being managed effectively."
	I do not think that anything that Lord Laming found in 2001 has changed. It is probably more important now that services are co-ordinated and integrated better than they were then.
	The Children Act 2004 placed local authorities under a duty to make arrangements to co-operate and promote the safeguarding of children, including the sharing of resources, money and information. I am pleased that Darlington was an early adopter of the children's trust model before it became a statutory requirement. The success from 2004 obviously differed between agency areas, which was partly because the model was optional and so some areas, such as Surrey, did not take up the recommendation as quickly as they might have done. As a former lead member for children's services in Darlington and a former chair of its children's trust, I remember attending a training course with the lead member for children's services from Surrey county council and its chair of scrutiny, who were utterly perplexed by the idea that those services would need to work quite so closely together.
	In 2008 it was realised, following consultation, that strengthening was needed, so all local authorities were required to set up trusts and "duty to co-operate" partners were expanded. Schools were included in that duty to co-operate, and it would be surprising if they were not, as they are best placed to know when things are going wrong and should, if anything, be better supported by the wider children's services and properly involved in commissioning services.
	In November 2010, Ofsted undertook to study six children's trusts, Darlington being one of them, to find out whether this children's trust business was all just bureaucracy and a load of nonsense that was having no impact. As chair of the children's trust, I was relieved to find that what we were doing was having an effect. Ofsted concluded:
	"Children's Trusts were providing more integrated front-line services that were linked closely to and responded to local needs... Trust boards showed considerable flexibility and willingness to find common ground from which to move services forward. They showed strong commitment to intervention and prevention",
	of which everyone is saying they would like to see more.
	"They worked effectively in a complex environment which involved different performance targets, priorities and ways of providing services."
	I am proud to have been chair of Darlington children's trust at the time of that inspection and to have worked closely with the superb director of children's services, Murray Rose. Our children's trust was highlighted as an example of best practice. Success has not been replicated in every local authority, so we need to take lessons from the areas that have managed to make this work well for the benefit of children and families, rather than scrapping the whole infrastructure.
	In conclusion, and in case anyone thinks that this is some sort of romantic ideal of mine that services should work together properly, I should point out that Ofsted found some tangible outcomes from Darlington's children's trust: a rise in the number of young people screened for chlamydia as a result of closer working between schools and health services; a reduction of more than 20% in teenage pregnancy rates; improvements in long-term stability of placements for looked-after children, an area that is close to my heart; the continued improvement of GCSE performance; importantly, an increase in the number of children receiving free school meals who achieve qualifications at age 19; and, most significantly, a reduction in the achievement gap at level 3 at age 19 between young people who had received free school meals and those who had not. I am proud of Darlington's achievements and would like the Government to reconsider abolishing children's trusts.

Charlotte Leslie: I have changed my speech; I have rewritten it while listening to the debate. I was going to talk about the free school bid in Bristol and my hope that the local council would give parents what they wanted: an all-through school. I was also going to make a plea to the Front-Bench team to consider my idea for a trigger for a special needs assessment after a certain number of exclusions to see whether something was wrong with the original assessment. However, I am not going to talk about any of that, because I want to address something else which has been at the heart of the debate: appearance versus reality.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) talked about ideology and appearance and the importance of evidence, and I could not agree more with him. I know that Opposition Members are concerned about social mobility, as are Government Members, and I saw their bleak faces when the Secretary of State illustrated the awful situation facing children on free school meals and their lack of opportunity in comparison with their richer counterparts. I know that they are concerned, so we must ask how we deal with that.
	In asking that question, we cannot shy away from things that might not be ideologically to our liking. International league tables are so important, because there is a tendency to get caught up in a self-referential bubble of success, of exam results getting ever better. Our young people always work hard, and I believe that the cohort of young people in the country today is every bit as good as that in the 1950s, but that is not the point. The point is this: what is the objective reality of the qualifications that we are offering those young people? We must look at those measures to work out what is going on and then what we can do about it.
	I will re-rehearse the statistics. I understand that statistics always have wriggle room, but I do not think that Members can argue with the general thrust of the statistics from the OECD programme for international student assessment. They show that the UK has moved from fourth to 16th in science; from seventh to 25th in literacy; and from eighth to 28th in maths. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) for his brilliant breakdown of those figures and their background. The worst thing about that is that it is the poorest who suffer, and we have to look at why that is so. That is why the idea of an English baccalaureate is so interesting and crucial. The fact of the matter is that the poorest suffer in the curriculum. The evidence is overwhelming that those who go to state schools in deprived areas do not have access to the kind of academic subjects available to those who go to state schools in better-off areas or to private schools. That is because struggling schools have perverse incentives to put their pupils through qualifications that lead to equivalents so that they look good in the league tables. We cannot blame them for that, because it is obvious why they do it. The English baccalaureate is an attempt to offset that perverse incentive.

Mel Stride: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that apparently only 4% of young people receiving free school meals would currently qualify for the English baccalaureate illustrates her point?

Charlotte Leslie: I agree absolutely, and my hon. Friend anticipates my point. The English baccalaureate shines a cold and difficult light of reality on what is going on. I will ask a question that Members might expect to come from the Labour Benches: why is it that, because I went to a private school, I was able to study Latin and a range of academic subjects which friends of mine who did not go to private schools were not able to study? When I applied for difficult and competitive jobs in television, I was told time and again that Latin looked interesting on my CV. Why was I given that opportunity and my friends at state schools were not? I do not think that that is fair. I make no apology for a system that will enable people from less well-off schools to study academic subjects, because it is resetting a balance. It is a case not of having either academic or vocational subjects, but of having both. It is really very simple.
	If we look at the other objective measures of what is going on, we see that universities have courses that they value. I have a concern that our schools, in their bid to look good in the league tables, are pushing our children through courses that the universities do not value as much. The statistics show that only 1% of children on free school meals are going on to Russell group universities. That is not because those children are any less able than the counterparts, but because we have got something wrong.
	I would like to run through a few scenarios that I have come across to add colour to what I am saying. First, there is a boy in my constituency who went to a school in one of the more deprived wards, and he was prevented from taking physics. He was an incredibly bright chap and wanted to study physics, but he was prevented from doing so, which was awful. Secondly, the head who took over that same school recently said to me how despairing he was that he had bright students who had been told that they would do only vocational courses. Vocational courses are obviously equally important-someone had to build the building we are in now-but that does not mean that academically able children should not be able to pursue their course in life as well.
	Thirdly, we do not have the vocational element right. I do not even like the name "vocational", because a vocation is what one does, so one can have a vocation as a brain surgeon, as a plumber and even as an MP, but "vocational", which has slipped into the political language, is a euphemism for manual, practical and technical skills and crafts.

Kevin Brennan: That is what the Secretary of State said.

Charlotte Leslie: Is it? Well, I am pleased to be in agreement with him. It bodes well.
	To illustrate that point, I recall talking to a young offender in a young offenders institute. I asked him how he ended up there, expecting him just to be a bad sort, but he said, "I was really interested in electronics. I wanted to be an electrician, but every time I thought I was going to do something practical about electronics, they gave me paper about it." He said, "I can't do the paper; I can do the thing." That is how we have failed-for 13 years and more-a whole generation of people whose skills lie in the practical and technical fields. I could go on about how restoring discipline in our schools will help most those on free school meals, and about how discipline problems are highest in schools in deprived areas, but I will not.
	I finish with a plea, because I know that Opposition Members are as concerned as we are about the matter. We cannot any more afford the luxury of well-meaning idealism, and we cannot afford to refuse to face difficult realities, because the reality that we refuse to face is the reality that faces our poorest children throughout the country, every day and for the rest of their lives.

Julie Hilling: With so much in the Bill, it is difficult to know where to start. Some of it, such as the intention to give anonymity to teachers accused by pupils, is welcome. There are too many cases in which innocent teachers have had their careers and, sometimes, their lives ruined or, even worse, lost their lives, because of false accusations and malicious gossip, but such anonymity should be extended to support staff and to teachers and support staff in colleges, because they are equally vulnerable to accusations. I hope that the Bill will be amended to include them.
	Much of the Bill is, however, unwelcome. The abolition of the school support staff negotiating body is a real step backwards for the professionalisation of school support staff, making those workers-predominantly women-vulnerable to a return to poor wages and poor terms and conditions. Setting a core contract and developing a qualification framework has been fundamental in making support staff an integral part of our school landscape, but the Bill will reverse that progress, and is it the thin end of the wedge? Academies are being actively dissuaded from signing up to national terms and conditions for teachers, so will teachers become the next group to be thrown to the market?
	So much of the Bill seems to roll back the progress that has been made. It represents a view of education that does not match today's reality. In most parts of the country, we no longer separate children at 11 years old, creaming off just a few for grammar school education while giving the rest a shorter, cheaper education. Now, we have a more equal education system, in which we try to enable all young people to fulfil their potential. We said that we need 50% of our children to be educated to degree level, but what about the other 50%?
	We have very few low-skilled jobs left in our economy, and we need young people to be educated so that they are ready for the higher-skilled jobs that we do have. I therefore really do not understand why the Government are proposing a very narrow English baccalaureate and abandoning diplomas. Where is the research and evidence that those are the subjects that society and employers need? Why those narrow subjects? Should not education develop skills in investigation, analysis and comprehension? Is it not more important, therefore, that we have a range of equivalent subjects rather than a narrow definition?
	As a scientist, I stopped doing history and geography in year 8. Is the Secretary of State saying that those subjects are better than the physics and chemistry that I did? Young people need a broad and balanced curriculum, not one based on the narrow views of a few individuals. We also need to recognise that different children and young people learn differently. Some are perfectly happy to listen and absorb information, but others need to learn by doing. The diplomas would have opened up different routes for young people to learn-and to learn things that employers want.
	I met a group of apprentices in Parliament yesterday from my constituency. They work for MBDA, a company that manufactures missiles. It is clearly very high-tech engineering, and the company has a fantastic apprenticeship programme. Those apprentices will all do ONDs, HNDs and NVQs, which the company very much values, because they judge what the apprentice can actually do, not just what they can write on paper.
	Many will also do a degree as part of their apprenticeship. I asked them why they decided to go down the apprenticeship route, and part of the reason was the fear that, if they went to university, they would just be hugely in debt and then possibly unable to get a job. They also did so because they preferred to learn by doing and to put theory into practice on a daily basis. I asked their training officer and their managing director what subjects they needed young people to learn in schools. They said they wanted maths, English and science, but they also believed that technology was essential. Why will the Secretary of State not listen to employers, such as MBDA, which are the highly technical, high-value manufacturers that our economy needs?
	Moving on, I am as confused as the Bill appears to be about the future of careers guidance. As we speak, Connexions personal advisers all over the country are getting their redundancy notices. Of course, Connexions is more than careers guidance. It is also about working with young people who are either not in employment, education or training, or at risk of becoming a NEET, to help them to reach their full potential; and it is about working in partnership with schools and other agencies.
	The Bill states that schools have to provide independent careers guidance, but that the school does not have to pass on information about the pupil to the adviser. The Department has announced the introduction of an all-age careers service later in the year, but as yet we have no details about it, and local authorities currently have a duty to provide the Connexions service. That part of the Bill appears to be an ill-thought-out mess. Surely the sensible thing to do is to fund Connexions until its staff can be transferred to the new all-age service, keeping intact all those years of experience and the expertise of careers advisers, with the service then having a duty to provide careers advice in schools and continuing to provide a much-needed service to young people. As one of the young female engineering apprentices said yesterday, "How will young people like me know about the option for apprenticeships like this if they don't get good careers advice?"
	Finally, I have concerns about education funding. Whether the schools budget is being cut or growing is for somebody else to argue, because there is no question but that funding for other parts of education has been slashed. All other funding streams have been put into the early intervention grant, covering such things as Sure Start, Connexions, teenage pregnancy, substance misuse and youth services-a much reduced pot of money compared with the original funding. The Government state that they are
	"freeing local authorities to focus on essential frontline services".
	The reality is that, instead of devolving power, they are devolving cuts.
	What we are seeing nationally is the utter destruction of youth work, both in maintained youth services and in the voluntary sector. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 gave statutory responsibility to local authorities to provide positive activities for young people, and to consult them about the services that should be delivered. The Bill appears to be silent on youth services, but surely there is a responsibility to ensure that youth services are delivered and young people consulted.
	This Saturday, 30 national organisations and 1,000 young people representing hundreds of thousands of users of youth services will meet in Solihull to discuss the demise of the youth service. Some local authorities have shut their youth services altogether; many face 50% to 80% cuts. Unless the Government act, many parts of the country will have no youth service, nowhere for young people to go, nothing for them to do and, even more importantly, no one providing the informal education and support that is so vital to young people's development. I beg the Minister to intervene to save the youth service.

Richard Fuller: I look forward to supporting this Bill with gusto on behalf of all my constituents. It is, indeed, a landmark Bill. Historic? Well, not quite historic. Landmark, I think, is better, but the canon of my right hon. Friend's work as Secretary of State for Education will truly be seen as historic as time passes.
	It has been interesting to sit on the Government Benches and hear not only the speeches recognising that the Bill honours, empowers and respects our head teachers, but the observations of right hon. and hon. Opposition Members and the real divisions within the Labour party over the Bill, which is really the continuation of a journey that their Government started. There are divisions between those who believed then and believe now; those who believed then and are now just a little bit iffy; and those who never believed in the first place and certainly do not now. It has been very interesting to hear the observations about those divisions in the Labour party. It is welcome, however, to hear that Labour Members will be supporting the Bill.
	One part of the Bill that is extraordinarily useful and valuable is the requirement for local authorities to fund early-years teaching for the most disadvantaged. That will come as welcome news to the governing boards and teachers at Cherry Trees, Peter Pan and Southway nurseries in Cauldwell ward, one of the most deprived parts of my town, which are suffering cuts from the Liberal Democrat-controlled council. I hope that we can move this measure forward quickly so that they can see that there is some hope for their funding in future.
	If we are moving forward with the reading test at the age of six, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) welcomed, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will ensure that they maintain the grants that are extraordinarily important for children who do not have English as a primary language at home. At two primary schools in my constituency, Priory lower school and Queens Park lower school, well over 80% of pupils do not have English as a primary language. We must maintain the ethnic minority achievement grants for families where English is not the primary language spoken at home. I also draw the Minister's attention to issues of exclusion, which were mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State. The National Autistic Society says that for children with autism the exclusion rate is 27%, but for the rest of the population it is 4%. That is a major difference that requires further consideration.
	My main concerns are about the proposals on academies and free schools. I like the fact that the Bill enables schools, each in their own time, to move towards becoming an academy. The Bill gives them that freedom, which they did not have before it was proposed and will not have until it is passed. I urge us all to think about talking to our own local authorities. As this strong movement towards academies moves forward, there will come a tipping point when local authorities no longer have the critical mass to offer the services they provide to the remaining schools. That is not a reason to hold back on this new-found freedom for head teachers, but a push for us to ensure that our local authorities are thinking ahead about what they will do next.
	The Bill overcomes inertia and intransigence and promotes inspiration. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will want me to give local examples of those three things, so I will accede to that. Let me start with inertia, which comes from the local authorities. As the shadow Secretary of State desperately tried not to be on the wrong side of history, he may have put a bit too much reliance on the record of local authorities. A total of 216 schools across the country are below the national minimum standard. That gives hon. Members a one in three chance of having one in their constituency. I inherited two: that was the record that my local authority bequeathed to me when I became the Member of Parliament.
	I am not going to stand for that in my constituency. One of them, John Bunyan school, had been trailing at 19% and the low 20%s-at the lowest point, 9%-in terms of students who were achieving the minimum level of five GCSEs, including English and maths. Parents were voting with their feet, and its pupil numbers rolled down from 900 to 600. The school then became an academy. It has taken the action, and parents are responding. Now, its application rate makes it a 1,200-pupil school. Parents want this. They see that academies are a way of breaking down the inertia of local authorities, and I can see that in my town.
	We have seen intransigence from the more extreme, unreconstructed class warriors or defenders of their own self-interest-by that I mean those at the Anti Academies Alliance and their fellow travellers at the Local Schools Network, who are, around the country, doing a great disservice to parents by distorting information, in some circumstances possibly to the extent of giving misinformation, about what academies and free schools are trying to do. They are also indulging in highly personalised attacks against people who want to establish academies and free schools-attacks they would never allow on members of their own union. We have seen that in Battersea, in Stourbridge, in Hammersmith and in my own constituency.
	It is time that those people stopped acting as bovver boys for a Labour leadership who do not want their fingerprints on the crime of attacking people who have educational inspiration for their communities. I challenge the Labour leadership, in this debate, to draw the campaign by those groups to a close. There should be no more misinformation and no more attacks on people who are in the proudest tradition of trying to establish educational excellence in some of the most deprived areas of the country. In a blog for the Local Schools Network, the author refers to a debate in my town in which someone said of Mark Lehain, who has established a free school,
	"Does he truly believe that local LA heads and teachers...are going to willingly and regularly exchange pleasantries?"
	Well, I have got news for that person: we do things differently in Bedford and Kempston. I am very proud of our head teachers, 34 of whom came down here to make their case to the Secretary of State. We do things as a team in Bedford. Head teachers share what they learn from each other and grow together. I am very proud to say that that exchange partnership is going to welcome the head teacher of the free school, when it is established, as part of the family of schools. That is part of showing the way forward. That is the inspiration that we need, and that is what this Bill provides.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Like the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), I have changed some of what I was going to say, because I want to respond some of the outrageous and inaccurate comments made about Labour's record in office with regard to education.
	I want, however, to start a bit earlier than that-in the early 1990s, when I was vice-chair of education in Newcastle. I think that Conservative Members need a history lesson about what we inherited from the previous Tory Government. For very many years, because of budget cuts, all that we did when we met as an education committee was to take money out of the education system. We made teachers redundant, and we made class sizes larger and larger as the teachers disappeared, so that in the end we often had 48 or 50 pupils in our classes. When schools came to us with a request to do something about their roof leaking, we did not tell them how much money they would get or how many years it would take to mend it-we said "Go and buy buckets because there is no capital allowance for schools." The outcome was that in my constituency and in many areas like it, 30% of young people or fewer got five A to C grades at GCSE in any subject. This generation was, in many ways, failed by that Tory Government.
	When Labour came to office, we had to do something to try to reverse that dreadful situation, and we did. In my constituency, education was transformed under the Labour Government. We not only employed lots more teachers so that we could get more specialisms into schools, but reduced class sizes drastically. We did not waste money: we built new schools, which were absolutely necessary because of the appalling state of the school estate that we inherited. Most important of all, we improved qualifications so that by last year young people in my constituency were doing better than the national average for five A to C grades at GCSE, including maths and English. That was the reality under Labour, and it is an important legacy that I hope this Government will build on, rather than simply being trashed by Government Members.
	In the time left, it is impossible to go through the Bill in any detail, but there are a few overriding considerations. The first is about the number of powers that are centralised in the Bill that previously resided with parents, schools, teaching agencies, the admissions adjudicator and the admissions forum. I do not see how the Bill is devolving powers to schools. Secondly, there is a lack of any clear direction on vocational skills. Thirdly, a number of the proposals could make the education system more unfair, not less.
	I will start with part 8, which contains clauses 70 and 71. On Friday morning, I visited New College Durham in my constituency to discuss with 16 and 17-year-olds what they felt about the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and the introduction of the new tuition fees system. Clauses 70 and 71 are important in operationalising part of that new student funding system. I do not think that that should be done in a Bill such as this and outside the White Paper on higher education. I totally disagree with the market rates that are being introduced for student loans. It was quickly apparent on talking to the young people that fees of £9,000 would put them off even thinking about continuing their education. They cannot comprehend the sums involved-£27,000 on fees alone. When that is coupled with the payback on market interest rates, they just cannot believe that a Government of any description would ask for something that so dampens their aspirations. It was dreadful to witness that. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will think again about introducing this appalling and unfair system of student funding.
	We have to look wider than just some poor students getting to Oxford and Cambridge. I am getting fed up with how much I hear about that in this House. Although that is important and although I want students from poorer backgrounds to go to Oxford and Cambridge, I want every young person who would benefit from it to go to higher education at the institution that suits them. Unfortunately, I do not think that will be possible with the Government proposals.
	I will make a couple of points about early years and charges. I would like an explanation from the Minister about what clause 35 means and what the impact of introducing different levels of charges for services is likely to be on children. For example, people will pay a range of sums of money for milk or school meals. How that is implemented will be important, because there is a lot of stigma when some children get things free and others have to pay.
	I am sorry that the Government did not take the opportunity to use the Bill to extend free school meals and to extend the pilots of universal free school meals to all areas. There is an obsession with how schools impact on children and young people, without seeing the wider context within which they live. Children need to be properly fed, and to have good parenting, housing and health to thrive in schools. They need adequate support to enable them to overcome difficulties. It is a pity that when the Government looked at Sweden's free schools, they did not look at its excellent free school meals system.

John Glen: I will make four points on four aspects of the Bill.
	In Salisbury, I am blessed with some amazing schools, from the Trafalgar school at Downton in the south to Stonehenge school in the north. I have visited them all at least twice since I was elected. The school I am most proud of is Sarum academy, which operates in one of the most challenging communities in my constituency. When I first visited it a few months after being elected last summer, the headmaster would not show me round the school. He sat me down and explained many of the difficulties he had encountered. To his credit, he had made great progress in the previous 12 months in meeting some of the targets that had been set for him.
	A few months later, I visited the school again. The excellent new principal, Ruth Johnson, took delight in showing me round, perhaps because she was keen for me to take up the case for greater investment in the school. I am pleased to say that the Government duly heard those pleas and money has been forthcoming. She said that what was critical was not only the investment in buildings-I acknowledge what the previous speaker said about that sometimes being critical to lift the morale of teachers and pupils-but the discipline that she was able to instil because of the culture of the school.
	I welcome the provisions of the Bill, which give massive encouragement to teachers who have been struggling with discipline and pupil behaviour in recent years. It may be true, as was said by those on the Opposition Front Bench, that the cut in advertising will have an impact on recruitment. However, I suspect that the bigger reason for the drop in the number of people who want to go into the profession is that they have been unhappy at the level of discipline that they have had to deal with, and the level of support that they have been given, in the classroom. I am delighted that the Bill gives teachers practical powers to search and confiscate possessions when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the possession of prohibited items. They need that detailed provision to deal with some of the situations that they face. It is a scandal that a quarter of school staff have been subject to false allegations. It is important and welcome that teachers will be able to impose detentions immediately, without having to give 24 hours' notice.
	The Bill could go further. Like other Members, I am concerned about the provision for excluded children, particularly those who suffer from special educational needs and who need extra provision. I hope that when the Government bring forward proposals in this area, there is special investment for individual children who need extra help from the state. Vulnerable children who are excluded still have to access education and support. For the past six months, I have been battling along with my constituents Stuart and Emma Verdin to secure the right provision for their son James, and it has not been an easy process. Finding the appropriate discretion and finance for such individual cases needs to be taken seriously.
	I am delighted by the provisions on raising standards in schools. Currently, I do not think that educational standards have the full confidence of employers, parents and universities, particularly with respect to the examinations system. There seems to have been a conspiracy of affirmation that does not acknowledge the reality of grade inflation over the past 20 years. Every summer, every politician goes out of their way to praise the improvement in the quality of teaching. Some of that must be true, but I am not convinced that it is all true. Schools are choosing less rigorous subjects for their pupils to ensure that their league table position is maintained. That is not healthy. The provision for Ofqual to ensure that attainment standards are improved is welcome.
	I urge the Government to think again about the great contribution that religious studies could make to the English baccalaureate curriculum. I have been lobbied about the matter by a number of my constituents, and having studied the subject myself to the age of 18, I believe that it is of great assistance to critical thinking, teaching pupils to respect themselves and other religions, beliefs and cultures.
	I welcome, too, the simplification of the scrutiny process and the fact that Ofsted inspections will focus on four key areas. I welcome the fact that outstanding schools such as Bishop Wordsworth's grammar school in my constituency-soon to be, if not already, an academy-will not need to be inspected unless their performance indicators fall. That seems to me a reasonable and practical step for schools that do not need masses of attention from regulators and scrutiny by the state.
	I shall finish by addressing early-years provision. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), who endorsed the Bill's provision of free early-years education for two-year-olds. It is critical that the Government have a joined-up policy across education and welfare reform, which we will discuss in a couple of weeks, to ensure that poor children do not become poor adults. I endorse the report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who has done so much to raise awareness of the critical importance of that issue.
	We need to go further in recognising that there is too much micro-management in early-years provision. I remember visiting a school in my constituency last autumn and seeing pads of yellow Post-it notes lined up as the teachers and teachers' assistants were getting ready to photograph every single element of behaviour in order to demonstrate change. It is right that parents want to see some evidence of progress, but do they really need a blow-by-blow account of every time their four-year-old blows his or her nose?
	The Bill will make a massive contribution for children in this country and in my constituency. I have suggested a few improvements, but I welcome it massively. Those improvements can be taken on in Committee, and the Bill will make a massive contribution to education in this country.

Pat Glass: There are elements of the Bill that I welcome. I like the parts that are intended to ensure that full funding follows an excluded child from their school. Too often, some schools have simply washed their hands of children with difficulties and problems, and hopefully the Bill will make schools think carefully, and financially, before doing so in future.
	I also like the plans that will, we hope, ensure that schools remain responsible for the educational outcomes of children they exclude. I have visited very many schools over very many years, from the smallest nursery schools to the highest-achieving grammar schools to the most specialist behaviour schools, and eventually the conversation always gets round to behaviour. At almost every school, I have been told at some point, "If you could just take away the five most difficult children, everything would be wonderful." But teachers know, and I know, that if they took away the five most difficult children, the next five would simply rise to the surface.
	Only when schools start to deal properly with their difficulties in the quality of teaching and learning, and introduce consistent approaches to behaviour and staff training, do they begin to feel confident in their ability to manage behavioural problems. I hope that preventing schools from simply washing their hands of the difficult children will make all schools begin a proper internal dialogue about those issues. I also welcome plans to provide anonymity to teachers accused by pupils until they are charged, and I hope that the Government will consider extending that to all school staff.
	Given that I welcome some clauses in the Bill, I hope that Members will see that my remarks today are not about opposition for opposition's sake but about making the Bill better for all children and young people, their schools and their families.
	I wish to focus for a while on early intervention. We all know that there is an enormous body of evidence to support it, not least that provided to the House in recent months and years by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). As we all know, early intervention means not just intervention in the early years but intervention with children and young people as soon as a difficulty becomes apparent, whether that is when a special educational need is suspected, when other barriers to learning become clear or when the safety and well-being of a child or young person is suspected to be at risk.
	The Bill is full of good intentions about early years and early intervention, but it cannot be separated from the reality of, in some cases, biblical-sized cuts facing local authorities. In the early years, Sure Start is widely recognised as a distinctive and increasingly important service that plays an essential role in helping our children get the right start in life and ensuring that they are ready to learn when they start school. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have made personal promises to keep Sure Start centres open. Even since the election, they have said that they do not want any to close, yet there are to be significant budget cuts that will mean the removal of funding for Sure Start and the ring-fencing that would have protected those centres.
	The Government have said that they are safeguarding Sure Start funding, but they have cleverly rolled together 10 separate and previously ring-fenced budgets, including that for Sure Start, into their new early-intervention grant. That budget will increase to £2.2 billion in 2014, but they have dictated that that money has to support not only Sure Start centres but the cost of extending free education to two-year-olds; the cost of short breaks for disabled and vulnerable children; all support programmes targeted at preventing children from engaging in crime; all support programmes targeted at tackling substance misuse; all teenage pregnancy support programmes; programmes for children with mental health problems and learning difficulties; and all transition arrangements. It also has to support all behaviour support services in schools and local authorities; child and adolescent mental health services; children's community paramedic services such as speech therapy; special educational needs services; and youth services.
	For the Government to say that they are providing funding to support Sure Start and early intervention is not only wrong, given the current financial situation facing local authorities, but insulting. They are tying the hands of local authorities by slashing their budgets, while at the same time washing their hands of any proper support. Closures in the children's centre network are inevitable.
	Although I welcome some things in the Bill, some matters are missing from it that would have benefited it. I urge the Secretary of State to include measures to ensure that all schools take their fair share of pupils from poorer homes and those with special educational needs. All that we have had so far is a promise to simplify the admissions code of practice, but for many parents there are real concerns that "simplify" will mean "make opaque", and that it will therefore be easier for schools regarded as good or outstanding effectively to exclude those groups of children through their admissions policies.
	I also urge the Secretary of State to amend the Ofsted framework to ensure that all schools are properly held to account for all children's outcomes. That can be done by including a limiting judgment that ensures that no school can be designated an outstanding school if it cannot demonstrate, first, that it takes its fair share of pupils from poorer homes and pupils with SEN, and secondly, that it is narrowing the gap between the achievements of those children and the most able in the school. In my view, that is what makes an outstanding school. Those would be real sanctions, and I recommend them to the Secretary of State if he is serious about improving outcomes for vulnerable children and those from poor homes.
	As well as clauses that are missing from the Bill, there are those with which I disagree outright, including the ones that reduce the powers of independent exclusions panels. They will have a direct detrimental effect on children with SEN, particularly those with hearing impairments, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy and diabetes. There is a known link with behaviour when those conditions are not properly addressed. The Select Committee on Education looked at that in some detail recently, and I recall that not even one witness from across the educational divide felt that the reduction of those powers was a good thing.
	I disagree with the measures that seek to remove the requirement to give 24 hours' notice of detention. That is at best disrespectful to parents, and at worst a child safeguarding issue. I also disagree with the measures that repeal the duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities and those that repeal the duty on schools to have regard to children and young people's plans. As I said in an intervention, those duties have had a significant impact in reducing the number of serious case reviews in the middle years-from when a child starts school to the middle teenage years.
	Finally, there is much in the Bill to recommend it, but there is much that I ask the Government to reconsider.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. I call Chris Pincher.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Christopher Pincher: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to my dwindling number of fans in the Chamber for that unsolicited testimonial. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on Second Reading of this wide-ranging Bill. In the interests of time-the fickle finger of fate is working against us-I shall focus my remarks on one aspect of education that is essential to its success: the need to drive greater aspiration.
	In Tamworth, we face a real challenge to encourage aspiration among our young people, because historically we have not had the sort of GCSE and A-level results that we could and should have had. However, parents, pupils and teachers are prepared to meet that challenge if they are given the tools with which to do the job.
	There are three essential tools to driving up aspiration among our young people, the first of which is restoring discipline in our classrooms. I do not want to go on too much about that-my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) has already spoken very eloquently about it-but we know that without good discipline, there cannot be good education. We heard the statistics. There are some 18,000 assaults on teachers each year, resulting in pupils being suspended or excluded, and that does not begin to describe the pain and fear that members of the teaching profession feel when those assaults happen.
	Such indiscipline drives teachers out of the classroom, but it also distracts good children from their studies and means that the kids who really need help-the disadvantaged ones-do not even get into the classroom in the first place to be taught. I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement that the 24-hour notice period for detention will be abolished. That will give detention real teeth. I am pleased that we will encourage ex-members of the armed forces into the teaching profession, because they have dedication and enthusiasm and they know a little bit about discipline. I am also pleased that we will free-up pupil referral units, particularly in respect of my own excellent PRU at Two Rivers in Tamworth, to give them the opportunity to use their expertise to stem the tide of disruptive pupils who end up on the NEETs scrap heap.
	We also need to use teachers. The Secretary of State paid tribute to them, as I do. We have some fantastic teachers in Tamworth, including a great set of maths A-level teachers at Belgrave high school. When I go to see my primary school heads at their quarterly meetings, I see the enthusiasm that they have for their subjects.
	However, those professional people are burdened by bureaucracy. It is our responsibility to remove that burden of responsibility from our head teachers and other teachers, so that they can get on and do what they really want to do, which is to teach. That is what the Secretary of State will do. I also think that freeing-up schools via the academies programme encourages good teachers to stay in the profession and the recruitment of good teachers. We have one academy school in Tamworth, but by the end of next year all our secondary schools should be academies. Teachers in Tamworth are embracing freedom and the choice that freedom gives them.
	It is important to stress vertical integration between primary and secondary schools. In Tamworth, we still have kids going into secondary school aged 11 who have a reading age of eight. Some even have reading ages of seven. I suppose that after 13 years in government, Labour might call that progressive. However, I do not think it is good enough, because it means that kids in that situation, entering Belgrave school, Wilnecote school, Queen Elizabeth's Mercian school, Rawlett school or wherever, start at a disadvantage, and many of them will never catch up but will be put on the NEETs scrap heap.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of this point, because we have discussed it before. We need to encourage greater linkage between primary and secondary schools, even joining them up, so that secondary and primary school teachers can work together to identify the children who need help and raise them up so that they are ready to go to secondary school and have the same chances as the other kids. Going to secondary school should be like going up a gentle incline; it should not be like facing a sheer cliff face. I hope that he will take that point onboard.
	I should like to say one more thing about secondary school education and the need for greater aspiration. It is something that is not actually in the Bill, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, in his winding-up speech, will make some remarks about it. Since the Butler Act-the Education Act 1944-we have clung to the antiquated notion that A-level students should apply to university six months before they sit the examinations that will determine whether they go to university. It is strange that the hopes and aspirations of young people should be determined by the educated guesses of their teachers, rather than their own merits. The fact is that they are just educated guesses: 55% of predicted grades, on which universities make their conditional offers, turn out to be wrong, and it is the most disadvantaged children who suffer, because of the kids doing A-levels in the lowest socio-economic group, 61% have mis-predicted grades and a very large proportion have under-predicted grades, the result being that many of them do not go to the university they want to and many do not go to university at all. That is a travesty.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use all his eloquence and artistry to prevail upon the Minister for Universities and Science jointly to come up with a proposal for post-qualification applications to universities. It is a challenge, but it will mean less bureaucracy for universities and UCAS; it will end that horrible spectacle-I remember it back in 1988 when I left school-of kids going through the clearing process over the summer; and it will even up the advantage for those disadvantaged young people who currently go to university on the basis of crystal-ball gazing by their teachers, not on their merits.
	Apart from that one, small caveat, I think that this is a good Bill. It offers freedom to schools, and we should support it. I shall be voting for it tonight.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. A large number of Members are still trying to get into this debate, so the time limit will be reduced to six minutes. Even with that, I suspect that some Members still might not get in.

Steve Rotheram: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am from Liverpool, so I suppose I am getting used to cuts. I will try to amend my speech to fit the six minutes allocated.
	As we have already heard, the Bill covers a wide range of concerns-from school discipline and behaviour to schools admissions and exclusions, setting up new academies and even changes to apprenticeships and the reform of student fees and loans. It is a mishmash of proposals designed not to give everyone the best chance of a good education but to create a three-tier system of the haves, the have-nots and the have-not-got-a-chances. In the future, unless parents have money or good connections, their children will be sent to schools facing massive cuts in their budgets, while money is siphoned off to academies and free schools.
	Narrowing the curriculum to five subjects will mean abandoning all the young people who have thrived on vocational courses. Removing the promise of an apprenticeship will leave a legacy of young people who do not fit into this 1950s vision of what an education should be-young people consigned to the scrap heap by a Secretary of State who cares more about Latin and the classics than he does about Liverpool and the educational attainment of children from ordinary working families.
	Above all, the Secretary of State is asking this House to strip local authorities of their role in managing the provision of education, and to transfer to him 50 new powers to interfere in and control almost every aspect of our schools system in England, including what subjects our children learn and what kind of schools they go to. Indeed, so much will be affected that, in view of the time, I shall confine my remarks to an aspect of education that gets little attention in the Bill, something that I believe highlights this Government's misguided priorities.
	We on the Labour Benches judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable, not by how the strong prosper. In that sense, many Members have been right to express deep concern today about what the proposals will mean for the treatment of children with special educational needs. As Ofsted highlights, just over one in five pupils-1.7 million school-age children in England-are identified as having special educational needs. Critically, as a whole, pupils currently identified as having special educational needs are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, are much more likely to be absent or even excluded from school, and achieve less well than their peers, in terms of both attainment at any given age and progress over time.
	Getting education right for those young people transforms their chances and our ability as a society to benefit from what they could be, rather than dealing with the consequences of what they never get help to overcome. First and foremost, what many parents of children with SEN in Liverpool will ask about this Bill is: how can we judge what these proposals will mean for those children if we have not even been given notice of when the special educational needs Green Paper that this Government said they would publish will be published? In the absence of such information, the proposals offer little comfort to parents, who fight hard to ensure that their children receive the education they need, whatever their ability.
	Many in the Chamber would recognise the challenges that Ofsted identified in its work reviewing SEN schooling and in the special educational needs and disability review. However, that is why it is all the more worrying that the proposals in the Bill have been brought forward without any details outlining what they will mean for children with SEN. Under the present system, a parent of a child with SEN often fights long and hard to get their child statemented, to ensure that they can access the services necessary to address their specific requirements. Under the proposals in the Bill, I fear for those children who need the co-operation of different services to participate in education-for example, children with a disability-or to access speech and language therapy, or mental health support.
	It is not just in ensuring that children with special needs are supported that the cross-agency approach is important. Many of the current provisions were introduced as a result of the Laming report, as we heard earlier, following the death of Victoria Climbié, in order to protect the health, safety and well-being of children and young people. I therefore hope that Ministers will offer more than kind words for the parents of children with special educational needs who are listening today, and explain clearly how the Government's proposals and the removal of the role of local authorities will not lead to a loss in joined-up services for our most vulnerable students. We know that children with SEN or a disability are more likely to face discrimination in admissions. The outcomes of the case often depend on the evidence presented, and if-

Nigel Evans: Order.

Damian Hinds: At its heart, the Bill is about social mobility and opportunity for all, and we need to address those issues urgently. No one would doubt the good intentions of the previous Government, but the statistics are there for all to see. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) complained about how much people talked about Oxbridge statistics, and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said she was fed up with hearing them. Sadly, however, there are many other, equally depressing, statistics. Among young adults, there are 1 million people who are not in employment, education or training. The lower income groups, which form 50% of the population, have only a 16% representation in the top universities represented by the Russell group. A student's chances of getting five good GCSEs are four times as great if they have degree-educated parents than if they do not. Even at the age of three, twice as many children in the top income quintile are school-ready as in the bottom one.
	Problems such as social immobility did not start under the previous Government, but we have every right to expect that these things will improve constantly. I am afraid that social mobility has stalled. It is stuck stubbornly at levels that, in some cases, we barely tolerated in the 1970s. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said that we should look for evidence-based approaches, and I could not agree more. We know what makes a difference. Given the economic legacy that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench inherited, with the Government spending £4 for every £3 that they received in income, it would perhaps have been easiest to postpone any expansionary programme. However, I am pleased and proud that the Government whom I support are finding ways to extend free nursery care to two-year-olds. They are extending the participation age to 18-or continuing its extension, to be fair-and, perhaps most dramatically, introducing the pupil premium, which represents a significant structural change to the way in which we fund education.
	Another factor that we know from international studies makes a huge difference, not only to the overall average attainment in a school but to equality of opportunity, is the person standing at the front of the room: the teacher. That dwarfs other factors, including class size. When you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I were at school, we were taught not to judge a book by its cover. In this case, however, we can do just that, because the front page of the White Paper tells us all that we need to know about this Government's approach. It is entitled "The importance of teaching".
	This will be manifested by reinforcing the status and authority of the teacher, making a clear statement that they have an absolute right to impose reasonable measures to achieve classroom discipline, and to be protected from vexatious allegations. We need to move from a situation in which difficult children mutter, "I know my rights" to one in which all children can say, "I know where I stand." Teachers repeatedly complain that they are burdened by too many targets, too much prescription and too many directives and missives landing on their doorstep. I therefore welcome the Government's approach in rationalising the national curriculum to leave more room for innovation and for learning other things.
	We have fantastic teachers in our school system-I think they actually work a lot harder today than they did when I was at school, and, by the way, I think the children do as well-but we need to encourage yet more talent into the profession. Teach First has been a great programme, and I celebrate the fact that it happened on the watch of the previous Government. Now, it is going to be doubled in size, and we should all welcome that. I hope that the publicity surrounding the troops to teachers programme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) referred, will send a clear signal to men that more of them are needed and welcome, particularly in the primary sector, whether or not they have been troops.
	Alongside mobility within the system, we also need to think about mobility opportunity for us collectively as a nation. I am afraid that one of the bad things about the past decade or so is that, as every single domestic record has been smashed, we have been falling further down the league tables. One of the most refreshing things about the new Government is that whenever anyone asks, "How did you come up with that idea?" or "Where did that one come from?", the answer starts with, "We looked at where they do it best in the world." I am pleased that that world outlook also extends to the international benchmarking of our qualifications.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) explained quite brilliantly how some of the fastest growing qualifications were not those that are sought by universities or employers but those that offered quick, short-cut ladders up the performance tables. This misleads students and flatters the system, and it does nobody any favours except in the very short term.
	There will be a sharper focus on the key aspects of an academic education, but, to be absolutely clear to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), the English baccalaureate is not all that is in the curriculum: it comprises only five core academic subjects, and I do not think that for most people, English, maths, science, a humanity and a language would be a particularly controversial definition of what should constitute an academic core. Alongside it, of course, we must have proper valuing of, and political will behind, the vocational routes and qualifications.
	We should not care only about headline results; we need to look at how to value every child and how to progress every child. CVA-contextual value-added-is a ridiculously complex measure, which nobody I have ever met understands. We need better ways of ensuring that schools' efforts on behalf of every child are valued. Too often in this House we debate how we are going to tackle the bills of social failure, and I am delighted that today we are debating this Bill-a Bill for social opportunity.

Alex Cunningham: I will, of course, oppose this Bill because it provides yet more evidence of an elitist approach to the education of our young people. This Tory-led Government are out of touch with teachers, with parents and with students.
	I get sick and tired of people doing down our young people and their very real achievements, when we should be celebrating with them and praising and encouraging them to do better. They should be able to thrive, doing the things that they do best within a balanced curriculum. Yet at Education questions yesterday, the Secretary of State proudly promoted his narrow 1950s vision of what our education system should look like. His attachment to dead languages such as Latin is worrying. As Secretary of State, he has a responsibility to create a flexible education system that caters for all students-he is failing in that responsibility.
	The proposals for the "English baccalaureate" are a backward step, which sends our young people the message that only traditional academic subjects hold any value. Instead of telling young people what subjects they should be studying, the Secretary of State should be giving them the freedom to pursue the subjects that they are passionate about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) rightly questioned, how can the Secretary of State proclaim that Latin is more important than information technology in the 21st century?
	About 50% of our young people do not plan to go to university, and I think that number is going to grow as the tuition fees rises are brought into place. We have brilliant universities in this country, including the excellent Teesside and Durham universities, and the young people who aspire to attend university should be encouraged to do so. A university education, however, is not the be-all and end-all, because other things are happening in further education. We must be careful not to send the wrong message to our young people, many of whom work incredibly hard and are rightly proud of their achievements-irrespective of whether or not they reach university.
	This Bill contains measures that give the Secretary of State free rein to set uncapped and commercial rates of interest on student loans. The thousands of students who marched passed my office as part of the protests against the rise in tuition fees are learning government lessons the hard way, and it will be their successors who know that we are not "all in it together".
	Youth unemployment is at an all-time high. One in five of our young people are out of work. The Tory-led Government are in danger of creating a lost generation of young people, so why does this Bill repeal Labour's apprenticeship guarantee? With current levels of youth unemployment, we should be doing everything we can to help young people succeed in education and training. Over and again, we hear the mantra, "We're all in this together"-but not according to the large numbers of young people in my constituency who have e-mailed me, angry at the way their generation is being targeted by this Tory-led Government. They are most particularly concerned about the move to scrap education maintenance allowance-another broken promise to add to the list.
	There is much to criticise in this Bill, but I want to move on to focus on the Secretary of State's pet project of free schools. The Government's free schools initiative has serious implications for secondary education in the Stockton borough. Last week, the Secretary of State visited Stockton to announce he had given the go-ahead for an initial plan for a free school in my neighbouring constituency of Stockton South. In my former life as a local councillor in Stockton, I was the cabinet member for children and young people, so I know this is a very difficult local issue.
	Ingleby Barwick is a modern and growing housing development, with only one secondary school. Many hundreds of local children have to travel a few miles to get to school. Parents in Ingleby Barwick have campaigned for years for another secondary school, but if they are successful the implications will be problematic. Conyers and Egglescliffe schools-both excellent local secondary schools-rely on pupils from Ingleby Barwick to keep their numbers up. At least one of these schools serves children from my constituency and potentially would have to close if the Secretary of State were to approve a new school in Ingleby Barwick.
	If the free school proposal goes ahead, which other schools will suffer, and perhaps even close, as a result? That is what I and affected communities in my constituency want to know. I cannot understand how the Government can allow any school proposal to go ahead without consideration of the local authority strategy for schools. In Stockton the strategy provided for a massive expansion of All Saints school in the middle of Ingleby Barwick, which could have been facilitated without the investment that will be needed if the free school proposal is to go ahead. That idea was ditched by the Secretary of State when he axed Building Schools for the Future.
	It is important for parents to have influence over local schools, but free schools will undermine local authorities. I am concerned about the impact that the free schools initiative will have across the Stockton borough as communities and schools are pitted against each other. When it comes to the free schools policy, for every winner there will be an even bigger loser.
	The Bill requires the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds that would surely be better spent on supporting existing schools. The Secretary of State is preoccupied with his structural changes to the education system, while neglecting what teachers and parents care about most: the provision of the best possible education and training for all our young people, not just the most academically able. Contrary to what the Secretary of State claimed, in my area children across the education system did considerably better over the past 13 years than over the previous 10. We need to work with our schools and local authorities to achieve even greater success, rather than setting school against school. Let us build on success, not abandon it.

Mel Stride: I welcome the Bill, because it will improve education in our country in the same way as the Academies Act 2010 does. That is vital not just to the pupils whom we have been discussing today, but to our standing in the world. It is important to our businesses and to our economy. We are trading in an increasingly international, globalised, competitive marketplace in which the knowledge-based industries are king, and knowledge is power in the modern world.
	Over the past week or so, Opposition Members have taken great delight in bandying about the words of Sir Richard Lambert, the outgoing director general of the CBI, about our growth strategy. In December 2009, in an interview in  The Guardian, Sir Richard said that the then Government should be ashamed of the results produced by the education system. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) should interpret such comments not as an attack on the pupils who are working so hard, but as an attack on a system that has consistently and utterly failed them.
	Social mobility is essential, but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), it is probably at its lowest level since the 1970s. I will not pretend that responsibility for that lies only with the previous Government, but no one can escape the simple reality that education is the great route of social mobility, and that we get it wrong at our peril. Some Opposition Members are irritated by the statistic revealing that last year just 42 pupils receiving free school meals obtained places at Oxford and Cambridge, compared to over 80 at one public school alone, Westminster. That is a disgrace, but, rather than being irritated by it, Opposition Members should feel angry and sorry for the many other children receiving free school meals who have been deprived of the opportunity to achieve the very best in their lives.
	I welcome many aspects of the Bill. For instance, I welcome the way in which it encourages and promotes academies and free schools. I believe that parents should be the ultimate arbiters of what is best in education. They do not need league tables. They know-as they say in Northern Ireland-what the dogs in the street know. They know a good school from a mediocre school, and it is they who are most likely to stand up for their sons and daughters. We must promote academies at every turn.
	I also welcome the Bill's emphasis on the importance of improving qualifications, and on ensuring that Ofqual takes account of international league tables. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), there is no point in our continually looking to the past and our inflated examination results, patting ourselves on the back and telling ourselves how well we are doing domestically, when we are plummeting in the international league tables year after year. The PISA numbers have frequently been cited in the debate. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) rightly pointed a finger at them, saying, "You can't quite compare one year with another, as there's a different cohort." There may be some truth in that, but even Opposition Members must on occasion have pause for thought about the fact that there has been such a slump consistently over time.
	It is important that through this Bill we get a firm grip on the issue of school discipline. Some 1,000 pupils are excluded each day for abusive or possibly even assault-based behaviour, and many teachers are being put off from even going into the classroom as a consequence. It is right that teachers should now be given the authority to search pupils; we should trust them to do that. Among the items they are currently not allowed to search for are hardcore pornography and video cameras, which can be used to film disruptive incidents that can then be posted on the web. It is right that we should empower them to take the necessary action.
	It is also extremely important that we afford teachers our protection in respect of unfair claims made against them by pupils. An Association of Teachers and Lecturers survey has shown that about one in four teachers have been the recipient of false claims, and I welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that they are given anonymity up until the point at which they are-or are not-charged.
	I welcome the Bill, and I want it to be a moment of hope not just for the children who are currently at school, but for future generations yet to come. I hope they will look back and see that this was a moment when their life chances were improved immeasurably.

Lisa Nandy: I welcome some of the Bill's measures, in particular the commitment to retain the extension of free early-years provision to two-year-olds, which could not be more important. I am sorry it is no longer envisaged as a universal provision, but I am grateful to Ministers for deciding to protect it for the targeted few at least. I would also welcome clarity on how it is to be funded.
	I am less enthusiastic about the Bill's provisions on behaviour and discipline, however. I am a member of the Education Committee, and we have spent a considerable amount of time debating that topic and hearing about it from witnesses in evidence, and it seems to me that there are two key principles: first, powers and protection for staff; and secondly, protection and freedom for pupils. I think Ministers have got that balance wrong. We heard from a range of witnesses and we could not find any evidence that over several years behaviour had worsened. In fact, the majority of witnesses agreed with Ofsted that the vast majority of behaviour in schools is good and no worse than previously.
	I also think Ministers have got the balance wrong because there is cause to believe that their proposals may make the situation worse. The relationship between pupils and teachers should be based on mutual respect. Pupils learn by example and flourish in strong, trusting relationships with adults, yet what is proposed in the Bill is largely a one-way street that says to pupils, "We expect you to respect us, but we won't respect you back." No-notice detentions, which I raised earlier, are a pressing example of that. I am particularly concerned about them in respect of young carers, but I am concerned not only for the children but for teachers as well. The point that the Secretary of State failed to understand when responding to my question was that teachers do not necessarily know that young people have caring responsibilities. Rather than trusting teachers, this Government are putting them in an impossible position. This "bureaucratic burden" of giving notice is an important safeguard for teachers as well.
	The same could be said of powers of search. Many of the teaching unions have said that they think what is proposed will lead to a rise in the number of legal cases against teachers, and I am extremely concerned about the protection for those teachers. Will the Secretary of State support teachers when a legal case is brought against them for overstepping their powers of search? If not, this is not so much liberation for teachers as abandonment.
	There are signs that the Government wish to protect teachers, however. I am particularly grateful that the plans to remove the requirement to record incidents of the use of force have been reconsidered, because that is an important safeguard. Like many others, I welcome measures to protect anonymity, but why do they not also apply to support staff? We must be careful not to create an impression that, with the abolition of the school support staff negotiating body, we are saying to support staff that they do not matter.
	I am also at a loss to understand why safeguards on exclusions are being removed, given that statistics show that head teacher decisions are overturned in only 2% of cases. I know from experience that we do not always get this right; looked-after children are nine times more likely and children with special educational needs are eight times more likely to be excluded from schools than others. That can produce appalling results, and are we seriously saying to children who have suffered that injustice that they cannot go back to the school where their friends are?
	For the most vulnerable children the Bill seems to be a disastrous unravelling of a decade of progress. I am concerned about the removal of the Children Act 2004 duty to co-operate. As a school governor, I know that schools are really busy and pressed for time. That is why it is so important that they are required to sit round the table and take the time to talk to partners. I say to Ministers that, by taking schools out of that equation, they are putting children at risk. I urge them to reconsider.
	I am not at all convinced by the fairness of the new school arrangements and I am particularly concerned about admissions forums. Ministers are reviewing the code with a view to slimming it down so, with the abolition of admissions forums and the watering down of powers for the school adjudicator, we simply do not know which standards, if any, schools will be held to for admissions. We need to know that if we are to understand the Bill's implications.
	I am most concerned about the aggressive expansion of new-style academies and free schools, for which the Bill provides. In my local area, a campaign group, Save Wigan Schools, is battling against academies, not just for the children who will lose out as a result of academies, but for teachers. According to international studies, their pay and conditions are one of the key factors, so I say to Members on the Government Benches that this is a problem not just for teachers, but for children, as the evidence tells us that through pay and conditions we raise standards. I was appalled to see a letter from Lord Hill, the Education Minister, telling schools not to sign up to the NASUWT's pay and conditions agreement. I say to those Government Members who talked about bullying tactics, if that is not a bullying tactic, what is?
	My chief concern is that the Bill will entrench segregation and widen the achievement gap. I welcome the increase in the participation age, but how are students expected to carry on without the education maintenance allowance? Although the Bill contains measures that I welcome, its general direction is of great concern: it introduces more centralisation and prescription; it is based on a lack of respect for children; in reality, it removes protection for teachers; it shows a shocking lack of respect for the valuable contribution made by school support staff; and, most importantly, it is based on a vision of competition between schools that is sure to create winners and losers. The Bill undermines the key principle that education is a public good, held and managed in trust for the wider community. For that reason, the Bill will not just disadvantage the most disadvantaged children; it will disadvantage us all, and I will not be voting for it.

Andrew Percy: This has been an interesting debate, with the Bill having been described variously as minor tinkering building on Blairite successes and as creating a wasteland in education across England and Wales-and that is just from Labour Members. We have heard some very diverse opinions from them. Although there was some good in what the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, she fails to understand the reality of what classroom teachers face in our schools today.
	An awful lot of myth has been put about in respect of many of the Bill's proposals. I am broadly supportive of the Bill, although it contains bits that I do not particularly agree with and so I will get those out of the way first. Since I have been in this place, I have learned that legislation is like a box of chocolates: you do not like everything in it. I am not a particular fan of the forced raising of the participation age to 18, but I am probably out of sync with many people, on both sides of the debate, about that. I also have some concerns about the changes to student loan interest and I have some issues to raise about the English baccalaureate, which I shall discuss in a moment. Those are my minor concerns with the Bill, but in general I am a huge supporter of it and of the ministerial team in this Department, who have the best interests of this country's young people at heart.
	I wish to deal with some of the points made by Opposition Members about bringing unqualified people into the classroom, as if that were something new. I intervened on the Secretary of State on this matter. The practice is not new, although there are more unqualified staff teaching young people in our country today than at any time since the war and possibly ever. Studies have been done by the unions to prove that. Some of that teaching has been very good and in some circumstances schools have had to go down that route, because standards have slipped in some of our schools and they have been unable to recruit qualified staff. There is nothing wrong with bringing in people from different backgrounds. My personal view is that once they are teaching in the classroom, they should at least follow a route to a formal qualification. We should make that process as easy as possible, because it is desirable. When I did my post-graduate certificate of education, I learned important things in the classroom that people cannot necessarily obtain outside the classroom. We should not be worried about bringing in people from different backgrounds.
	The hon. Members for Wigan and for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) have mentioned discipline. In specific circumstances, the power to search pupils there and then is important. One may have concerns about the wording of the provision, but sometimes situations arise in schools where classroom teachers need to act immediately-I can think of a number of situations in which it would be important to conduct a search there and then for the safety of other people in school. The power is important, but it is a permissive power, because Ministers would prefer teachers not to have to search young people.
	On notice for detentions, there are times in teachers' careers when they need to act there and then, because it is important to deal with an issue at the end of the school day. I taught at an incredibly difficult school, and I remember a huge problem on the local estate when a large number of our young people got involved in physical fights with another school-the situation also involved some parents, which was not helpful. We needed to deal with that situation there and then, and writing to say that we wanted to see a child in 24 hours' time was not helpful. We had to deal with the situation there and then, but we were hamstrung by the rules.
	The hon. Member for Wigan has raised the issue of discipline. I did not want to write home to some pupils' parents to tell them that their child had a detention; I wanted to deal with the situation myself, because I knew that if I made contact with some of those young people's homes, their lives would be made much more difficult. I would prefer to deal with such issues in the way in which I see fit rather than necessarily by engaging with parents. There is a protection issue for young people.
	I do not have a great deal of time left, so I will not discuss exclusions, but I will comment on the curriculum and standards. I welcome the review of Ofsted, but the issue always comes down to interpretation. It is virtually impossible for a school to put itself through an Ofsted inspection in an honest way. The school has to step up to a mark that is not necessarily sustainable throughout the whole school year and jump through hoops that are impossible in any other circumstances. Classroom teachers are asked to do things that it is not possible to do all the time. I welcome the changes, but I hope that Ofsted's interpretation will change.
	The English baccalaureate is not simply a case of requiring schools to do certain subjects. However, it is probably drawn a little too narrowly, particularly where schools are required to do modern foreign languages. It might be very good to get young people to do modern foreign languages-I make these remarks as a history teacher, who will benefit from the change-but in a selfless act I appeal for the baccalaureate to be drawn a little more widely, because we will end up with its being used as a measure. In schools such as the one where I used to teach, engaging children and young people in modern foreign languages who may not receive support at home is incredibly difficult, and those schools will be judged against that standard, no matter how much we try to make it a secondary standard.
	I am sorry that I do not have time to continue in further detail. I say to Ministers that the Bill is good and that I will support it, but please will they think again about the English baccalaureate?

Gavin Shuker: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for instinctively knowing that I wanted to be called after the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who talks an awful lot of sense particularly about the English baccalaureate.
	Today is an opportunity for us to discuss the principle of the Bill, which is why it is so disappointing that the first 52 minutes of the debate were about politics. A number of elephant traps were set to try to make the Labour party look as though it were the roadblock to reform, which is not the case.
	The Bill raises important issues. It includes a shift from Whitehall to the classroom, but it also goes in other directions. It goes from local people, in the form of local authorities, to individual schools. Parts 5 and 6, in particular, relate to local authorities and schools admissions and they will remove the admissions role of schools adjudicators, increase the emphasis on academies and remove the requirement to consult on them. Also relevant are free schools, appropriate consultation and the disappearance of local admissions forums. All those issues point to a broad but consistent agenda that seeks to undermine the role of local authorities and each of us in our individual locations. We are losing the sense that we are together making decisions in our towns and cities about how we educate our young people. There are trade-offs involved and we should not seek to minimise them. This is our role in debating the principles behind the Bill.
	There has been a lot of talk on both sides about the number of young people coming from a free school meals background and going to Cambridge. I came from a free school meals background and went to Cambridge, so I would have been included in the figures. Much as I am concerned about that issue, I am more concerned about the young people in my constituency who come from a free school meals background, or just above that line, and who are not achieving the results that they should. I went to a comprehensive school in Luton and when I left school in 1998, which is not so long ago, only one third of young people in my constituency were achieving five GCSEs at grades A to C-the kind of thing that would help them to get on in life. At the time of the last election, the figure was two thirds, so real progress was made under Labour.
	I concede that much of that progress was made as a result of the arguments about whether we should have more choice and more autonomy in schools. We have two excellent academies in Luton, one of which started in my constituency and will shortly move into a new building. I do not want to undermine the ability of people to come in and turn around schools that are really struggling, but we should not pretend there is no trade-off in relation to the power of individual heads versus power being pooled, or to the sense that together we are educating our young people.
	The situation in Luton illustrates those points very well. We had 11 Building Schools for the Future projects cancelled in the BSF cancellations. For us, the projects were not just about providing world-class facilities but about providing the additional capacity that we desperately need. We have a major issue with our primary schools: we have projected that we will need another 5,000 places at a cost of £76 million, but we will get only £4 million over the next four years. As a result of more providers coming in, there is a disjointed admissions policy and successful free schools and academies, will serve only to increase the gap. My concern is that we are squeezing provision and narrowing the options in places such as Luton about how to respond to the diverse challenges required in education. The choice is between academies and free schools or nothing. There is not even a chance to expand good-quality comprehensive education because no additional is money coming in and there is no scope for local people to step in, through the realms of the local authority, and choose what type of school is appropriate for them.
	Last weekend, the English Defence League was in Luton and it raised the issue, once again, of community cohesion in our town. Education is about more than children achieving what they can in terms of grades and results. It is also about the kind of society that we want to create. If we want a comprehensive and mixed society in which people from different backgrounds come together, surely in a place such as Luton comprehensive education is the ideal. We have schools that are doing the work and want to expand, so why close them off and tell them that the only route is through free-school education? Schools are drilling down into more reduced catchment areas and the only route to expanding capacity is through academies or free schools. The slimmed-down admissions codes that are coming might make the situation even worse.
	In his speech, the Secretary of State cast himself as a brave reformer and cast Labour Members as the luddites who refuse to adapt to a changing world, but that is not the case. I believe there is a move, which started under the previous Government and continues under this one, to put more power into the hands of individual head teachers and away from local authorities, which are tasked with the responsibility of together finding a response that is appropriate to their setting. We have to accept that doing that comes with a cost. If the very principle of the Bill is to suck power away from the pooling of heads, we will have a model for education that is prescribed, controlled and modelled. In Luton, the effect of the Bill will be to store up problems for the future and for that reason-for my constituents-I will not vote for it tonight.

Bob Blackman: I support the Bill. As a recipient of free school meals who went to his local comprehensive and then to a red-brick university, I think there has been too much concentration on Oxbridge in the debate tonight. There are significant aspects of the Bill that need improving in Committee, but we should recognise the improvements that the Bill will bring to education across the country.
	As I have gone round the schools in my constituency, I have seen that they share a number of concerns. In the last year of the Labour Government, they received 5,000 pages of diktats and orders from Whitehall. They faced unnecessary bureaucratic interference. In most schools, which are excellent, head teachers know what to do, teachers know what to do, and they can get on with the job. They do not need diktats from Whitehall telling them how they should behave and how they should operate. I am glad that that will be swept away by the Bill.
	All the schools in my constituency have excellent disciplinary records, with firm discipline and leadership from the top. They say that when they have to exclude a pupil, they do so regretfully. They do not rush to do so. They try to support the pupil all the way until, regrettably, an exclusion is necessary. I speak as someone who served on a governing body for a long time and had to chair exclusion panels and go through the appeals process after the exclusions were upheld. It is a nightmare for the head teachers and for the governors, and it is unfair to the poor children who are excluded. We must give head teachers and teachers the power to do what they need to do to maintain discipline in the school so that those children can be taught in a properly disciplined way, and so that they can aspire to be the best that they can be. Without strong discipline, there can be no learning.
	I would like to see some aspects of the Bill improved. The first concerns the anonymity of individuals who have been accused of crimes, about which others have spoken. I agree that teachers should be protected, but so should support staff. In a school where I was a governor, the school caretaker, sadly, was accused-falsely, I am pleased to say-of the rape of a young child. The stain on his character after being named everywhere left his life in ruins. It is not fair for that individual or any member of school staff who has been falsely accused to suffer that. We should extend anonymity to support staff.
	We need to get right the issue of standard assessment tests, which are not mentioned in the Bill. For far too long, teachers in primary schools have had to teach to the SATs and the league tables, rather than teaching the children to the best of their ability and as broadly as possible.
	We must look at the subjects taught in our schools. I share with the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) the fact that the vast majority of the schools in my constituency have a majority of children for whom English is an additional language. Far from learning French or German, learning Hindi or Gujarati would be far more appropriate for them. It should be an option for them to achieve in schools. When we are talking about global expansion and our relationship with India and the far east, why should we limit ourselves to teaching European languages? That aspect must be examined as the Bill progresses.
	Finally, we need to consider the bureaucracy that has built up and the ability of academies to set themselves free and be a beacon of excellence in their communities. I was one of those who opposed the Labour Government's academy programme because I felt that it was far too elitist. It encouraged people who did not necessarily have the best interests of education at heart to take over schools.
	The beauty of the Bill and of the agenda that we are pursuing is that they offer all children the opportunity to succeed to their optimum ability. They will not be limited necessarily by their parentage or by where they come from. By offering that opportunity to everyone, from all walks of life and all backgrounds, we will give children the opportunity to succeed in a much more equal society where their ability can come to the fore and where that is what is important, rather than the accident of their birth. I strongly support the Bill.

Glenda Jackson: What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has broken the overwhelming trend in the contributions we have heard from the Government Members, which has been to paint a virtually dystopian picture of education in our country in which virtually every classroom is a battlefield, every teacher is incompetent and lacking in inspiration, every child is badly taught and where examination results are lamentable in comparison with other countries.
	The ability of children who receive free school meals to make it to Oxbridge seems to have been the recurring theme. The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who was the most recent Member to make that contribution, gave the example of Westminster school. If he is so concerned, why is he not arguing ferociously with the Government to fund pupils in our schools to the level charged in fees by Westminster and for class sizes to be as small as the standard not only in Westminster, but in every private school in this country?
	As far as I can see, the Bill is a typical Government piece of legislation; it purports to be under the overarching aegis of giving back to people in this country the right to make local decisions that affect them in their local areas, but it does exactly the opposite. It will put powers into the hands of the Secretary of State that are currently undreamt of by many local authorities and by the schools in my constituency.
	What I find most paradoxical is the way Government Members have bought what the Government are attempting to sell in the Bill. It starts with early-years education, because the Govt have trumpeted loud and long that every disadvantaged two-year-old-we are yet to know what will constitute that disadvantage because the Government have given us no detail-will be able to have nursery education. They then attempt to convince us that a child going from age two to five will of course be given a place in a local primary school-there is a desperate need for primary school places in my constituency-and that there will then be a gradual progression on to secondary school. Hang on a moment, because it looks, certainly from what the Government have said and from what has happened in my constituency, as though when children get to the age of 11 there will be no comprehensive schools left, only academies and free schools. The central and monstrous aspect of the Bill is that is will reintroduce a form of selection in schools. If there is no concerted local area agreement on what constitutes an admissions policy for all schools, we will see a return to what people of my generation lived through, which is the "them and us" approach to education for all our children.
	The Secretary of State's speech this afternoon culminated with the example of two schools that he admires and wants us to admire, but he ignored the fact that they rose to their present heights under a Labour Government.

Kate Hoey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Glenda Jackson: No.
	The Secretary of State also asserted that the Government are committed to ensuring that every child in this country has the best possible education. How can that conceivably be so when we are looking at a situation in which academies and free schools will be the only schools available to local people? We have no idea what the capital costs or revenue costs of those schools will be. The idea that we are making a real inroad into affording opportunity and aspiration for every child, however disadvantaged their background, by introducing free education for two-year-olds, when we know that Sure Start facilities are being closed even as we speak-

Tim Loughton: No they're not.

Glenda Jackson: Oh yes they are. Children's centres are being closed-

Michael Gove: Where? At half-past 9 on a Tuesday night?

Glenda Jackson: The lack of imagination from Government Members never fails to amaze me.
	The idea that this Bill is going to ensure that every child has an absolutely clear ride from the ages of two to 18, that there will never be a bump on the way and that at every single point they will be encouraged, inspired and told to aspire is utter nonsense. I shall not go down the road of discussing the abolition of the education maintenance allowance for those who stay on at school until aged 18.
	For Liberal Democrat party members-who I presume obtained their degrees from the Pontius Pilate school of political philosophy-to support this Bill is yet something else of which they have real cause to be ashamed. But no one should be as ashamed as the Conservative party, which, despite its protestations about caring for every child in this country, is setting in train an educational system that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said, will create not just one or two but three tiers of education in this country.

Neil Carmichael: I am reminded of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Education Committee Chairman, who, towards the beginning of the debate, talked about Benjamin Disraeli and how important education was to him.
	When Disraeli was talking about education, however, Bismarck was launching secondary education in Germany, and we did not get around to that until 1944. Education has always been a case of catch-up for us, and that is one reason why it is so important to focus on international comparisons. The first battle that we have to fight is the battle between ourselves and other nation states. It is an important battle and one for which we have plenty of weapons. One is having trust and confidence in our head teachers, another is having trust and confidence in our teachers and another is ensuring that our reform of the education system empowers schools to get on with their job.
	The second battle that we have to fight is the battle for fairness, and this legislation helps in that regard, too, because, first, 120,000 two-year-olds will receive proper reading support, which is absolutely imperative, and secondly, we are investing £2.5 billion in the pupil premium. Those are signal efforts to ensure that we can win the battle for fairness. So there are two battles, and both are critical.
	I shall comment on a few aspects of the Bill which have not been mentioned. First, on our proposals to reform Ofsted, we are right to ensure that it focuses on teaching, leadership and management, not on peripheral matters which are important, but not to the exclusion of what goes on in the classroom. So the first thing I say is, "Get it right over Ofsted." That leads me on to intervention.

Meg Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil Carmichael: No, I am not going to, because I only have a few minutes.
	We have to intervene in failing schools. In my constituency we have one or two, but a failing school is not a good school and we should never, ever tolerate it. So we have to ensure that action is taken.
	Secondly, I welcome our focus on 16 to 19-year-old education. We are empowering the Secretary of State to be in charge of that budget, and quite right too, because we cannot have people sitting in the same college classroom receiving funding from different sources and, often, different levels of funding. That is not satisfactory, and we should not tolerate it, because we have to address the skills shortage and tackle the fact that too many people do not receive sufficient training when they need it. That is bad for the first battle to which I referred, in terms of our contest with other nation states, and it is bad for the small and medium-sized businesses in our constituencies. Let us be clear about this: our focus on skills training is absolutely right.
	On the baccalaureate, it is not right to say that children should not have proper education in the key subjects-they should. That is what we are saying in the Bill, and quite right too. I fully support that.
	The responsibility for ensuring that the leadership and management of a school are properly focused will come down to governance, and the Bill needs to say more about that. We must remember two things about governance. First, we must focus on the skills of governors to ensure that they are willing and able to challenge the teachers and head teachers when appropriate. They must have the confidence to stand up and say, "Enough is enough", because they are standing up for our children. Secondly, we should think less about the representative side of governance and more about what governors do and the responsibilities they have. I should like to draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State.
	In summary, I support the Bill. Of course it can be improved, as can all pieces of legislation. However, the two battles that I mentioned are the battles we fight and the battles we must win.

Mary Macleod: I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it before the House.
	We have heard many passionate speeches today about education. I agreed with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) when he said that across the House we want all children to achieve their potential. I think we all agree with that.
	Education will determine our country as a nation, creating a strong foundation on which we can build for the future. It is about giving children a great start in life, increasing a child's options, reducing crime and strengthening our entrepreneurship ability and the growth of our economy in the long term. That is one of the reasons I came into politics. If I could do one thing in politics, it would be to create aspiration for all across society, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said. That is why I became a school governor, like so many others here. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and for Salisbury (John Glen), I have been visiting all the schools on my patch, including Heathland school, The Green school, Isleworth and Syon school and Chiswick community school.
	I would like briefly to mention three issues, the first of which is discipline. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), I think it is an absolute scandal that every school day nearly 1,000 children are excluded from school for abusing and assaulting staff and fellow pupils. Major assaults on staff have reached a five-year high, and that cannot be tolerated. Discipline, as my mother would say, starts at home, but sadly not all children have this. In my experience of working as a school governor, discipline is absolutely critical to the success of a school. The head of Holland Park school, Colin Hall, who is also a constituent of mine, transformed the school by introducing a structure, values, pride, order and expectations. He introduced a clear code of conduct that was about creating a standard of zero tolerance whereby certain things were no longer acceptable, and the students abided by it. I believe that the measures in the Bill will help to restore that balance of power in schools, giving heads and teachers more support in their efforts to maintain discipline in the classroom.
	My second point is about the curriculum. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) mentioned the international league tables for education. It is unacceptable that in the UK we have been falling down those league tables. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) spoke eloquently about the OECD figures, which show that we have slipped from 7th to 25th in reading, from 8th to 28th in maths, and from 4th to 16th in science. This has to be changed, and we must sort it out. I want to restore academic excellence in the UK. I agree with introducing the English baccalaureate because we want academic excellence for all. We want all children to have the opportunity to achieve that excellence. Education has traditionally been the core strength of this country, but we have let it slip and need to get it back on track. The proposals in the Bill will raise educational standards and give the next generation the education that it deserves.
	On post-16 education, I welcome, especially in national apprenticeships week, the Government's approach to apprenticeships. That investment is about creating skills and jobs for the future.
	Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said, the Bill gives us the inspiration to create free schools. Given that I need a new school in Brentford and Isleworth, I encourage parents, teachers, co-operatives and charitable trusts to create something for the future.
	In conclusion, we need to give all children the best possible chance in life by giving them a great education, skills and aspirations so that they can go on to do their best and be the best that they can be. Teachers have a special role in helping children to believe in themselves and achieve their potential. The Bill will allow them to do that by restoring discipline, reducing bureaucracy and raising standards, which will create a better future for us all.

Kevin Brennan: We have had an excellent debate this evening on the Second Reading of the Bill. If I counted correctly, following the opening speeches there were 34 speeches from the Back Benches-a full class in the state sector, although perhaps not in the sector in which most Government Members were educated.
	There are many reasons to oppose the Bill. Indeed, the provision to increase the interest rate on student loans, which has been snuck into the Bill, would be sufficient reason on its own. The Secretary of State accuses us of being against everything in the Bill because we will vote against its Second Reading. In that case, perhaps we should warn the Liberal Democrats that they will be painted as voting in favour of increasing the interest rate on student loans, even if they voted against the student finance measure in the motion before Christmas.

Dan Rogerson: rose-

Kevin Brennan: In a moment. I am sure that people will, in a "Focus"-like fashion, look at the way Government Members vote this evening.
	There are many other reasons to oppose the Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) pointed out in his opening speech. It strips power from pupils, professionals, parents and the public. That is not to say that we do not support some things in the Bill. We have heard about that during the course of the afternoon. On the surface, the Bill tries to make further progress on the excellent progress that we made in government on behaviour, including on the ability to search pupils and confiscate items, clarifying the position on the reasonable use of force by teachers, and allowing teachers to discipline pupils for behaviour beyond the school gate.
	Like any reasonable Opposition, we want to scrutinise the detail in Committee. We want to be sure that the Government's proposals will have a positive impact and not drag schools into further bureaucracy or legal challenge. The proposals should broadly promote the ability of a school to create a quiet, orderly environment for learning. That is the kind of environment that we all agree is not only good for the vast majority of non-disruptive students, but is in the interests of pupils whose behaviour impacts on their own learning and that of others. We will consider the proposals in forensic detail in Committee.

Dan Rogerson: rose-

Kevin Brennan: In a minute.
	In Committee, we will consider the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) and others to ensure that the proposals are not window dressing, but a genuine enhancement of what we achieved in office. We will consider whether they will cause more problems for teachers and schools. Part 1 of the Bill seeks to build on the revolution in early-years provision that Labour pioneered in office. In particular, we will look closely at the power the Secretary of State is awarding himself to decide who gets early-years teaching, how much and when. We will approach the Bill in Committee in that way.
	Overall, we oppose the Bill on Second Reading because, along with a number of other pieces of legislation, it fits in with the ideology of the coalition Government; an ideology that the Lib Dems appear to have been duped into going along with, having been seduced, it seems, by Lady Localism. Well, she is not what she seems in this Bill and I ask the Lib Dems to consider carefully what the Bill does about localism. Localism, for them, used to mean enhancing local democracy. This fits in with the Orwellian use of language that the Government have adopted. Just as for the Home Secretary a curfew has become an "overnight residence requirement", localism is used to describe a Bill that takes away local democratic power from communities, teachers and parents, and puts the power into the hands of one man-the Secretary of State. The Bill is described, unbelievably, as a decentralising measure, but he is taking more than 50 new powers to himself to control almost every single aspect of the schools system.

Michael Gove: List them.

Kevin Brennan: I do not have time to list them all, as the Secretary of State knows, but here are a few examples: which subject students should study, how teachers should teach and what types of schools communities should have. He will say that he is just nudging them in that direction, but a nudge with a loaded gun is very different from a gentle steer.
	What is it about the Secretary of State, assisted by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), that makes him so obsessed with grabbing more and more power at the centre?

David Blunkett: Megalomania.

Kevin Brennan: I would not quite go that far, but whether it is the power to close schools or the power to discipline teachers individually, which has been so carefully and consensually put beyond politicians in recent years, we have to ask why the big power grab.
	I do not know whether any Members with children have ever seen the TV cartoon "Pinky and the Brain", but the Minister of State and the Secretary of State rather remind me of it. As the title suggests, there are two characters. Pinky is good-natured, but he is dominated by the Brain, who is self-centred and thinks he is a genius. Every episode, after the opening titles, there is the following piece of dialogue: Pinky says, "Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?", and the Brain says, "The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world." That could almost be a transcript of the ministerial meeting at the Department for Education. I know the Secretary of State thinks he is clever, possibly the cleverest boy in the Government, but trying to create an education system in his own image, with all the powers in his own hands, is ultimately a recipe for chaos, not world domination.
	The Secretary of State is so intent on making sure that he grabs all the power to himself that he is getting rid of some of the bodies that might get in the way of his scheme not once but twice. Bodies such as the General Teaching Council, which was set up to give teachers the same professional autonomy as other valued professions, are abolished not only in this Bill but in the Public Bodies Bill, presumably just in case abolishing them once is not enough to make absolutely certain that they are absolutely dead. It is in case they suddenly rise up, like the false ending of some schlock horror film. We knew that the Secretary of State had a penchant for drama-we see it every week in the Chamber-although, I hasten to add, not enough of a penchant to include it in the English baccalaureate. However, killing a body twice to make sure it is dead is a bit over the top, even for him.
	Why this centralising power grab? It is not just power for power's sake, it is part of his vision of education. In their mind's eye, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State see serried ranks of schoolchildren sitting at individual desks, preferably wearing short trousers, chanting after their teacher their conjugated Latin verbs and copying down the dates of the kings and queens of England from the board.  [Interruption.] Did I hear a "Hear, hear" from the Conservative Benches? I think I might have done.
	If the Secretary of State thinks that is how to raise standards, he is wrong. A curriculum designed to train a few people to run the empire is not a system that will inspire and motivate the next generation to use their talent and creativity to the maximum benefit of themselves and the country. He has made it clear that in his mind a grade C GCSE in an ancient language, a laudable achievement in itself, is more valued than an A* in engineering or information and communications technology. He is, to coin a phrase, creating an analogue curriculum for a digital age.
	All pupils need the basic building blocks of literacy and numeracy, but beyond that, corralling pupils into a narrow range of subjects post-16 restricts choice and stifles creativity. Schools up and down the country, having been nudged by the Secretary of State with his loaded gun, are busily rewriting their timetables and pressurising pupils into taking GCSEs that are not necessarily the best ones for them to fulfil their individual talents. We must bear in mind the fact that they will already have studied history, geography, science and a modern language through the national curriculum. The English bac took a bit of a kicking from some Members on his own side of the House today, and he should listen to what they had to say.
	Why is the Secretary of State doing all this? Just so that at the end of this Parliament, he can point to a measure that he invented and imposed ex post-that is a bit of Latin, in case anybody did not know-and say, "Look how we've improved things. More people are studying the subjects that we have retrospectively said they should have been studying all along." It is actually pretty hard for people to fail a test when they have set the questions themselves. The provisions in the Bill on PISA tables are fine, but the Secretary of State had better stop misquoting statistics that he knows the OECD has disowned, and he had better stop ignoring evidence, such as that from Hong Kong or Scandinavia, when it does not suit his overall vision.
	When the Secretary of State finally gets round to saying something about vocational education, which he seems fundamentally to believe is for people who do not do well academically, he should remember that medicine is a vocational training that he ought to support. His problem is that he sees the English baccalaureate as the premiership and any league table of vocational qualifications as the Beazer Homes league- [ Interruption. ] I agree that there is nothing wrong with the Beazer Homes league.
	Finally, presumably the Secretary of State blames the previous Labour Government for the decline in social mobility in Government Ministers, and believes that it is our fault that the Government Front Bench is dominated by old Etonians, because we did not do enough on social mobility in government. On that point, I shall sit down.

Nick Gibb: This has been an excellent debate, with speeches delivered with passion and expertise on a subject that could not be more important. In the words of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who made a principled speech in support of the Bill, the debate is about the education of the next generation and a Bill that will determine the kind of society we have in 20 or 30 years' time.
	Between April 2009 and March 2010, 20,094 children rang ChildLine because they were being bullied at school. The median age of the children concerned was between 10 and 14, and 342 of those children were so traumatised that they were considering suicide. It is unacceptable that a child's education and childhood should be blighted by such stress. The coalition Government are committed to tackling all forms of bullying in our schools, including homophobic bullying, and the Bill makes a start by tackling the root cause of bullying-poor behaviour in our schools.
	Last year, 2,890 pupils were expelled from school for violent or abusive behaviour, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) pointed out, 1,000 pupils were suspended every day for such behaviour. The Bill ensures that when such a pupil is expelled, the appeals panel will be unable to require a school to take them back against its wishes.
	We want to tackle violent behaviour, but we also want to tackle the widespread and corrosive, low-level disruption that challenges teachers throughout the day, which serves to deter people from entering the profession and pushes many to leave it. According to the National Foundation for Educational Research, two thirds of teachers say that negative behaviour is driving teachers out of the profession. Dealing with that is about even more than tackling low level disruption. In some schools, children refuse to do their homework and teachers know that their pupils will not do their French vocabulary or read the next chapter of the set novel. Tackling that culture of low expectation and the school ethos by which it is not cool to study and work hard is central to our educational reforms, because that culture is at its strongest in the weakest schools in the most disadvantaged areas.
	The attainment gap between those from wealthy and poor backgrounds is unacceptably wide. Fifty-nine per cent. of non-free school meal pupils last year achieved five or more good GCSEs, compared with 31% of pupils who qualify for free school meals. That 28-point gap has remained stubbornly constant over the years. Our objective is to shift the balance of authority in schools away from the pupil and towards the teachers and heads-away from the child to the adult.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is right that we need to tackle the I-know-my-rights attitude of the disruptive child and enforce the rights of the overwhelming majority of children in schools, who just want to get on and learn in a safe, happy and stress-free environment. Pupils in schools make it clear that they know when they are being let down by poor behaviour, an inadequate curriculum or poor teaching. Addressing those issues is at the core of the Bill.
	That is also why we have launched a major review of the national curriculum-we want to ensure that our schools are teaching at least the core knowledge of the main academic disciplines-and why we have introduced the English baccalaureate to include GCSEs in English, maths, science, history or geography and a language. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) was right to argue in a powerful speech that this is not an elitist education. It is elitist to say that children from poorer backgrounds are not entitled to a broad academic education. That is elitist and backward looking. It is that attitude that has led to this country having wider equality gaps than most other countries in the OECD.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) asked whether the duties in the Bill on school provision of independent careers advice will apply to new academies. They will do so through their funding agreements. He also asked how we can prevent competition from damaging co-operation between schools. Our whole approach is to encourage the best professionals and schools to support the improvement of other schools. That is why outstanding and good schools converting to academies are required to support weaker schools, and why we are increasing the number of national and local education leaders. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the former Chairman of the then Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, is right to say that we need to take the party battles out of the education debate, and to look at the evidence-an approach that he always took when I served under his excellent chairmanship of the Select Committee. I welcome his comments about the Bill.
	I felt that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), overstated his case, perhaps for internal Labour party reasons and the need to be seen to oppose. However, he was also wrong on a number of issues. Local authorities will continue to be responsible for co-ordinating admissions, parents will continue to be able to complain to the school governing body and then to the Secretary of State, and, on exclusions, parents will have the right to appeal to an independent review panel. My hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) will be pleased to learn that we are considering the expertise on the panel, including that on special educational needs. The adjudicator will continue to investigate complaints, and we are extending his role to academies, which I hope will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). The shadow Secretary of State was also wrong about apprenticeships. Under the Bill, every 16 to 18-year-old who secures an apprenticeship place will have their training funded. Next year's budget will be more than £1.4 billion, funding more than 350,000 apprenticeships.
	The key objectives of the Bill are to raise standards of behaviour in our schools, to return authority to teachers and head teachers, and to send a message to schools that this is a Government who will support teachers. If teachers tell us that we are not doing enough on discipline, we will do more: clarifying and strengthening the rights of teachers, anonymity when facing damaging false accusations and abolishing the statutory requirement for 24 hours' written notice of detentions. We are sweeping away swathes of bureaucratic burdens from the desks and staff rooms of the teaching profession in order to send the message that we trust teachers as professionals. We are abolishing five quangos while strengthening accountability and increasing choice for parents. The White Paper, "The Importance of Teaching", set out a programme of reform designed to close the attainment gap between those from the poorest and wealthiest backgrounds, and to reverse this country's decline in international performance tables so that all who are educated in our state schools have the opportunity to compete with the school leavers and graduates of countries with the best performing education systems.
	We want an education system in which left-leaning journalists no longer feel they have no choice but to send their children to the independent sector. We want an education system where high performing schools such as Durand primary school, Mossbourne academy in Hackney and Twyford Church of England school are no longer regarded as extraordinary. This is a Government serious about education reform. The White Paper sets out our path, and this Education Bill marks a further stride towards delivering high-quality education for all. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 324, Noes 244.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read a Second time .

Business without Debate

EDUCATION BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion m ade, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Education Bill:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 April 2011.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. -(Angela Watkinson.)
	 Question agreed to.

EDUCATION BILL (MONEY)

Queen's Recommendation signified.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.- (Angela Watkinson.)
	 Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Cooperation Agreement) (Republic of Indonesia) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 November, be approved. -  (Angela Watkinson.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Police

That the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B and D) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 17 November, be approved. -(Angela Watkinson.)
	 The Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 9 February (Standing Order No. 41A).

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Energy 2020

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 16096/10, relating to a Commission Communication on Energy 2020: A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy: and agrees that the Commission's Energy 2020 strategy is an important step towards defining the EU's energy policy over the coming decade and will underpin Europe's move to an energy-secure, low-carbon competitive economy. -(Angela Watkinson.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Taxation of the Financial Sector

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15282/10 and Addendum, relating to financial sector taxation; recognises that decisions regarding direct taxes are primarily a matter for sovereign governments; supports the timely action the Government has already taken to introduce a permanent levy on bank balance sheets to ensure that banks make a full and fair contribution in respect of the potential risks they pose to the wider economy; notes that the Government continues to explore the costs and benefits of financial activities taxes and will work with international partners to secure agreement; and further supports the Government's position that an EU-wide financial transaction tax could lead to the relocation of financial services outside the EU. -(Angela Watkinson.)
	 The Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 9 February (Standing Order No. 41A).

PETITION
	 — 
	Education Maintenance Allowance

Alan Meale: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr Meale) presents his petition, may I issue my ritual exhortation to hon. Members, right hon. Members, and even Ministers who are planning to leave the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, extending the same courtesy to the hon. Member for Mansfield that they would wish in such circumstances to be extended to them?

Alan Meale: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker-although I must say that I do not mind if the Secretary of State for Education remains in the Chamber to hear the petition. He is fully aware that the abolition of education maintenance allowance is causing mayhem throughout our education system. Indeed, in North Nottinghamshire, part of which I represent, 74% of students who apply for EMA receive it in one form or another, and in my constituency of Mansfield 64% receive the maximum amount.
	The petition, addressed to the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, states:
	The Humble Petition of Stephen Yemm, citizen of Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, and others, including 420 other students of West Nottinghamshire College and Queen Elizabeth School, both based in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire,
	Sheweth, that they are opposed to the axing of the Education Maintenance Allowance which currently helps thousands of young people reach their full potential.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House calls upon the Government not to axe the EMA, but instead to continue with it supporting adult learners through this adult learning grant.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000885]

HIGHER EDUCATION (STUDENT VISAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Angela Watkinson.)

Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the impact on higher education of the proposed changes to tier 4 immigration rules, otherwise known as visas for students. The importance of this issue was drawn to my attention by my constituent, Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the University of East Anglia, who is chairing the Universities UK taskforce on this issue and who, like the Minister for Immigration, has recently given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs inquiry on the subject. I should remind the House at the outset that the UK punches above its weight in this area: we have one in 100 of the world's population, but seven in the top 200 of the world's best universities.
	Let me start by making a couple of basic observations. First, some people will perhaps be surprised-I certainly was-to learn that proper, genuine students are seriously considered to be part of the migration figures at all. Certainly, students must be subject to proper controls and have visas-student visas-but since they are self-evidently a transient population who come to this country to study, and who spend money in doing so, and who then leave when their studies are over, it is not immediately obvious why they should be considered as migrants. There is of course an issue-a very real issue-to do with whether students actually leave and, more to the point, whether those who call themselves students are nothing of the kind but in essence migrants by a different name, playing the system to come to this country for the purposes of long-term settlement. I will come to that later, but for now let me just say that students who come from overseas to this country genuinely to study should not in my view be properly understood as migrants, in the sense that they come here to stay and settle, that by being in this country for a given period of years they somehow acquire rights to stay that they did not have at the outset, or that they are somehow the source of political anxiety about immigration-they are not. They come here, they pay significant sums into our economy, they study, they eat, they drink and then they leave.
	My second observation is that I have noticed that some people talk about this issue as a political problem. "I know there is a political problem," they say, and they mean by that that this Government came to office saying that they would sort out immigration; they said that net immigration was too high and the figures would have to be reduced; and that that was the political reality that must be faced. The result is a clampdown-or potential clampdown-on visas.
	One hears stories about eminent and hyper-qualified people, including some of the world's foremost jurists and scientists, being unable to come to the UK to work, although without having personal experience of each such story one never knows for sure how true they are. I can say, however, that in my constituency I have encountered a Japanese paper conservator qualified to postgraduate level in both western and eastern conservation techniques who has had to leave the country because of the new rules. On hearing such stories, people say, "That's not what we mean. We don't want to exclude those who are going to help the country." I think of what my constituents say to me on the issue. They have never said, "Let's make sure we exclude the highly skilled-those with something to offer and who are going to help the country."
	The political problem in respect of immigration is quite different. My constituents are sick to the back teeth of people cheating when they want to migrate to this country-of people playing the system, and being more interested in what they can get from this country, including our benefits and health service, than in what they can contribute. My constituents hear stories about cheating, and they believe that at least some of them are true and they want it stamped out. For most fair-minded people, that is what lights the blue touch-paper in respect of immigration. There is not any desire to keep out those who will help us or those who want to study.

Keith Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman both on securing the debate and on having sat through the entire Select Committee sitting this morning. He will have heard every single witness, including the Minister and the representative of Migrationwatch UK, say that they have nothing against genuine students coming here, but that the people they are against are bogus students at bogus colleges.

Richard Bacon: I was particularly interested to hear Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch UK, who I have always thought is a very articulate spokesman on these matters, say that he was interested in bogus students, bogus applicants, bogus colleges and genuine students who overstayed, because those categories contribute to net migration, but that he would welcome more genuine overseas students, as he thinks that is good for the country and the economy.
	My fear is that genuine overseas students have been caught up in all this, so let me say how pleased I am that the Government have taken steps to deal with bogus colleges. The Select Committee on Home Affairs produced a useful report on that issue in 2009 and I gather from the Minister's evidence to the Committee today that some 58 colleges have had their status revoked and the Government have taken compliance action against a further 235, which may lead to suspension or revocation of status. I applaud those excellent and worthwhile moves. Nobody has a stronger interest in seeing bogus colleges put out of business than legitimate providers. I should add that the Committee's previous recommendation to restrict by law the use of the word "college" is a good one that Ministers should take seriously.
	There is no place for bogus colleges or bogus applicants; nor is there any place for genuine applicants who overstay. We should have clear rules that everyone understands and that are enforced. If we deal with the bogus colleges, the cheats, the bogus applicants and those who fiddle the system, a great deal of the heat-the political problem about immigration-goes away. At that point, we face chiefly not a political problem, but a much more entrenched and difficult economic problem. We are all living through the consequences of the worst financial crash for a century or more. We know that this will be very painful and that severe belt-tightening will take place, and we have seen the Government make a start on that. We all know that any Government would have had to do the same. We know that we have to rebalance the economy away from its heavy dependence on financial services and have much healthier growth in other sectors.
	We know that in Norfolk as well as anywhere does in the UK, because Norfolk is poised for significant growth in other areas of the economy, particularly once we get the dualling of the A11 completed, which I am pleased the Government have agreed. Norfolk is poised to help that rebalancing and not only through tourism, agriculture and high value-added food production, in which East Anglia has excelled, because there is a broader potential for growth. For example, Norwich is home to a cluster of internationally renowned research organisations in health and life sciences.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for a great many universities across the United Kingdom-particularly Queen's university in Belfast-students on visas are very important to research and development and to contact with companies? That potential needs to be realised. Does he feel that the coalition Government can make changes to ensure that the students who have the right to be in this country can make a contribution to universities and, thus, secure development?

Richard Bacon: I certainly hope so. I hope that the Government understand, if they had not already, that two in five PhDs undertaken in this country are undertaken by overseas students. Damage that and we damage the research base of this country.
	More than 2,500 scientists are working at the John Innes centre near Norwich, the Institute of Food Research, the Sainsbury Laboratory, the Genome Analysis Centre and the university of East Anglia cluster, which together form the Norwich research park. That is the largest concentration of food and plant scientists in Europe. The IFR was recently ranked in the top two of 36,000 worldwide research organisations for the influence and citation of its research.
	UEA also has a growing medical school and a renowned school of environmental studies. Other growing sectors include offshore and other renewable energy, including tidal, biomass and biofuel energy production. In advanced engineering the area has more than 1,000 engineering companies, employing a skilled work force of about 10,000 people, which trade around the world with the likes of Boeing, Airbus, NASA and Toyota. Group Lotus, which is based in my constituency, is developing the next generation of high-performance cars using renewable energies, as well as being the catalyst for a large cluster of advanced automotive engineering businesses along the A11 corridor. Almost every Formula 1 team is supported by engineers based in Norfolk or is using engineering invented in the county.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. This is a very competitive area because there are other countries, other language centres, and other colleges and universities to go to. Unless we get rid of the uncertainty, we will lose millions of pounds and thousands of students.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend is right because the uncertainty is already proving damaging, particularly on the language issue, as I will discuss in a second. In East Anglia, we see around us the huge potential for a new rebalanced economy that places relatively less emphasis on financial services and has growth in all these other sectors. We have the potential for a golden triangle between Cambridge, Norwich and Ipswich, where BT Martlesham has its own electrical generating capacity, because it uses more electricity for computing power than many small towns.
	Where is the role of the universities in all this? It is nothing short of crucial. As the Minister knows, we need more skilled people-all Governments talk about the need for more skills. Our education system produces far too many people who are not equipped to go further, which was the subject of this afternoon's Second Reading debate. Some people cannot study at university, because they do not have the basics in English, maths and science. We have a shortage of science and maths teachers, which is being made worse by a vicious circle: not enough students reaching the basic standard; not enough students studying those subjects at A-level; not enough good people therefore applying to university to study those subjects; and accordingly not enough graduates to become teachers to help solve the problem.
	What is helping to break that vicious circle? The answer is overseas students. In many STEM subjects-science, technology, engineering and mathematics-courses are viable only due to the substantial proportion of enrolments from outside the UK and the EU. If we get all this wrong, we will damage the possibility of our economy recovering and rebalancing away from an over-dependence on financial services. One need only look to the United States to see the enormously important role of a vibrant university sector in driving economic growth.
	In 2009, a study by the Kauffman Foundation on the impact of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which analysed the economic effect of MIT alumni-founded companies and their entrepreneurial ecosystem, concluded that if the active companies founded by MIT graduates were to form an independent nation, their revenues would make that nation at least the 17th largest economy in the world. The state comptroller of New York has estimated that college and student spending directly or indirectly provides nearly 500,000 jobs and generates more than $62 billion of economic activity. The comptroller of public accounts in the state of Texas has estimated that every dollar invested in the state's higher education system eventually returns $5.50 to the Texas economy.
	Why are those American comparisons interesting? The United States is the most successful higher education market in the world. It is No. 1, but which is No. 2? Where is the second-favourite destination?

Luciana Berger: The university of Liverpool has 3,000 international students, who generate not only £30 million of income for the university but a positive, knock-on effect for our local economy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we do not ensure that those students can come to the UK, we will see, at a time when we are seeing cuts to our university budgets, massive impacts on local economies?

Richard Bacon: When funding is tricky, universities are rightly looking for other sources of income-indeed, the Government have told them to do so.
	As I was saying, we are the second-biggest education market in the world.

David Lammy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Bacon: I will not give way. I am sorry, but I must make some progress, because I must leave time for the Minister to answer and this is only a half-hour debate.
	The UK higher education sector is a major export in a market that is set to grow rapidly. Professor Steve Smith of Universities UK told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that higher education is by some estimates the seventh largest export sector in the UK-others have put it as high as the third largest-and the market is growing by 7% a year. As the Home Secretary has pointed out, the combination of international fee income and personal off-campus expenditure by international higher education students alone already approaches £5 billion. That has become a vital income stream for universities and for the wider economy.
	As I have mentioned, Professor Edward Acton told the Home Affairs Committee:
	"In a tricky funding period, most universities plan to expand international numbers in the immediate future. The ability to do so reflects and enhances the performance and reputation of UK HE internationally: it is a Performance Indicator in international league tables. Culturally, the international student presence is key to ensuring our Home students prepare for and excel in a global graduate market".
	The UK's international alumni provide a healthy anglophile network among public and private decision makers in every one of our trading partners. The key question for universities is whether the Government intend to promote or restrict our recruitment of bona fide non-EU students in higher education. As Professor Acton stated in his submission to the Home Affairs Committee:
	"The answer might seem obvious, so forthright are No. 10, the Foreign Office and BIS on the matter and so vast are the economic, financial and cultural benefits to universities and the country."
	The Foreign Secretary announced in January that
	"as British Ministers fan out across the world in the months to come we will be promoting British education as well as our economy as a whole."
	On his recent Asian trip, the Prime Minister emphasised
	"how much we want to welcome international students to Britain"
	and that international students are a
	"great way of forming a partnership between our countries".
	Professor Acton and Universities UK fear that the UK Border Agency is set on a course which, if it is not altered, will drastically reduce legitimate higher education recruitment with a grave threat to pre-university pathway courses, which produce an income for universities of £1 billion a year. It is very important at this point to distinguish, as Professor Acton does in his paper, between sub-degree courses and pre-university pathway courses.
	The Minister will know that the international passenger survey is deeply flawed and that the Treasury Committee said three years ago that it was not fit for purpose if that purpose was to play a central role in estimating international migration. I urge him to continue engaging with the universities sector, which has offered to pay for speedy research to provide the conclusive cross-check suggested by Professor Acton in his paper. We cannot wait for several years while e-Borders gets sorted-we need action sooner than that. The Select Committee has explored these matters in depth and raised many interesting issues, such as the role of accreditation bodies and whether they should be merged, the place of post-work study and the requirement or otherwise to return to one's home country. However, I shall not dwell on those issues because there is precious little time left.
	I shall concentrate on just two issues, the first of which is pre-university pathway courses. Yesterday, I visited the highly impressive £38 million INTO building at the university of East Anglia, which provides pathway courses for 700 students each year, half of whom go on to study for degrees at the UEA and about half of whom go on to university studies elsewhere. That aspect of university provision is now a critical part of the international offer. Many countries do not have the equivalent of a second-year A-level and their students simply are not ready to start a university degree course without further preparation. In providing such preparation, universities such as the UEA are taking a sensible entrepreneurial step to safeguard their future growth and to help safeguard the UK's higher education market and make sure that it prospers.
	The second issue, which relates to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), is the importance of the English language in the mix. At a time when French universities have started offering university courses in the English language because of the richness of the potential English-language instruction market, I need hardly stress how important it is for the UK not to damage inadvertently that market in the UK. I can speak personally for the adage that there is no place to learn a language as good as the country concerned. I was a student in Berlin, where I attended lectures in English and German, and I acquired a new respect for any student studying overseas in a language that is not their mother tongue. That is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do without help. We are spoilt in the UK because English is the world's language of business and academia. We are so used to hearing a high standard of English among educated northern Europeans such as Swedes, Germans and Dutch-at the B2 standard or higher-that we assume it is easily attainable, but it is not. Those countries have invested a huge amount over many years to get to where they are now. The B2 standard of English is not often achieved in southern Europe and is seldom achieved in east Asia. Any measures that include a requirement for a B2 standard of English as a condition of entry will have a significant, damaging effect on the market for overseas students coming to the UK.
	This goes beyond language. The UEA has developed the innovative Newton programme in which overseas students come to the UK to do A-levels in the sciences, mathematics and economics in a university environment and have the opportunity to attend lectures with university undergraduates in those disciplines. That is a great way of marketing the university overseas and attracts some of the highest calibre students. If there were ever an area that cried out for joined-up government it is this.
	I really want to hear from the Minister on one issue above any other: do the Government intend to promote or reduce the UK's recruitment of bone fide non-EU students in higher education? We have to get out of a big hole. It is simply critical, at a time when the Government are asking universities to be more entrepreneurial, to seek out new customers and to offer new courses that meet the needs of those customers; and at a time when the whole economy needs a lift, which the university sector can provide, that the right hand and the left hand of our Government each know what the other is doing and that we do not inadvertently choke off what should be a crucial part of this country's recovery.

Damian Green: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing the debate. I appreciate that the unusually large attendance for an Adjournment debate means that many Members have come to intervene, but unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has taken up two thirds of the time available, I am afraid I will not be able to take any interventions. He has raised many important points that I want to address in the brief time remaining.
	First, let me put the consultation into perspective. Reforming the immigration system and reducing the level of immigration to a sustainable number is one of the Government's big tasks. The uncontrolled immigration levels of the previous decade led to a loss of public confidence, strain on public services and an increase in the visibility of extremist politicians holding unpleasant views seeking to exploit the problem. We as a country need to reverse this, and we as a Government are doing just that.
	We have made it clear that we will take a different approach. We will tighten up our system, stop abuse and support only the most beneficial immigrants. We set out our approach last year to economic migration, we have just finished a consultation on student migration, the specific subject of the debate, and we will consult on families and settlement. We have indicated that, through a more rigorous and controlled approach, we will see fewer non-EU migrants than in the past. Our goal is an improved system that commands the confidence of the public and serves our economic interests. We expect this to come through a system that shows a significant fall in net migration to the UK, from the hundreds of thousands annually that we have seen in recent years to tens of thousands over the course of this Parliament. To set that in perspective, in 2009 net migration was at nearly 200,000 and continued rising in the early part of 2010. For non-EEA migrants-that is, excluding British and EU citizens-it was around 184,000. My principal task is to reduce the numbers coming, increase the numbers leaving when their visas are up, and eliminate abuse in the system, one of the important points raised by my hon. Friend.
	I am taking action to tighten our migration system across all entry routes for non-EEA-migrants- work, study and family-and to break the link between temporary routes and permanent settlement. Some of the measures will take effect in the short term. Others will set us on a long-term road to sustainable immigration, where Britain benefits economically and culturally from new skills and backgrounds, but in a context where people are at ease with the changes that they see around them.
	On the student immigration system, the majority of non-EU immigrants are students. Our public consultation on the student visa system closed on 31 January and we are carefully considering the more than 30,000 responses that we received, before finalising our proposals.
	Let me deal directly with some of the points made by my hon. Friend. The UK's education system is world renowned. We remain the second most popular global destination of choice for the many thousands of higher education students who choose to study abroad each year. We want to encourage all those genuine students coming here to study at our world-class academic institutions. Genuine international students make an important financial contribution to the institutions that they attend, including our universities, where their continued contribution will be all the more important in the light of changes to the way in which those institutions are funded.
	The brightest and the best students who have the greatest contribution to make to the UK will continue to be welcomed under the student route, but we remain concerned that not all those using the student route at present are genuine students whose main intention is to come to the UK to study. There are significant numbers of students whose contribution is less easily defined.
	One of the interesting points that my hon. Friend makes, which has also been made to me by Professor Acton, on whose behalf he was speaking, is that we should stop counting students as immigrants-that they come, they study and they go, so they should not count. I am afraid to tell my hon. Friend that the definition of an immigrant is a UN definition. It is not under my control or under the control of the British Government. According to that definition, an immigrant is somebody who comes to stay in a country with the intention of staying for more than a year. That is the international definition.
	Those who invite me to change the definition make a tempting case. I could at a stroke define away 60% of the immigration into the UK. I could, with the statistical stroke of a pen, define away the immigration problem, but I am programmed to resist temptation. In all seriousness, the idea that any Government could say, "We've solved the serious problem of immigration simply by redefining what immigrants are" would have no credibility. It would clearly be an absurd thing to do. We have to keep using the internationally agreed figures that are always used.
	It is important to put the arguments in a proper statistical perspective. Students now represent the largest proportion of non-EU net migration. In 2009 the student route, including dependants, accounted for approximately 139,000 out of the total net migration figure of 184,000, which is 76% of total net migration. Recent Home Office research shows that 13% of those granted settlement in 2009 were originally admitted as students-23,000 grants of settlement. Further Home Office research shows that more than one fifth of those who came here as students in 2004 were still here five years later in 2009.
	Another point that is absolutely essential to understanding the debate is that all too often there is an assumption that the vast majority of those students who come here do so as university students. Actually, 41% of the students who come here from abroad do so to study a course below degree level, and abuse is particularly common at those lower levels. As my hon. Friend admitted, 58 education providers have had their sponsor licences revoked since 31 March 2009, and the vast majority of them were privately funded further education colleges.
	Last year, the post-study route, which my hon. Friend mentioned, allowed 38,000 foreign graduates to enter the UK labour market at a time when one in 10 UK graduates were unemployed in their first six months after graduating. Another common misconception is that because those highly skilled students are coming to read degrees and then take up skilled jobs in the work force, surely they are upskilling our general industrial output. In a survey of users of that system in which respondents were asked about their current employment status, of those in the tier 1 post-study work category-precisely those who are meant to be the brightest and the best doing skilled jobs-almost one fifth were unemployed and only half of those who were employed were in a skilled or highly skilled job.
	It is too sweeping a statement to say that the system as it has worked up to now is not delivering highly skilled people into highly skilled jobs, because it is doing some of that, but it is also doing an awful lot of something else that I suspect Members on both sides of the House would not regard as desirable. As was mentioned in the interesting Home Affairs Committee hearing this morning, when the new system was introduced by the previous Government, there was such widespread abuse in three parts of the world that after a few months the whole system had to be suspended there: no student could be let in from parts of China, India and Nepal because of the absolutely widespread abuse that we saw.
	I have already identified the private sector FE colleges that provide education below degree level as the area where we have the most worries. In the last year for which we have figures, those institutions admitted 91,000 students, so we are not talking about a small number of students on the periphery of a system that basically involves universities. We are talking about tens of thousands of students coming to institutions, the vast majority of which are not highly trusted sponsors under our system. That is why one of the key proposals in our consultation document is that only providers who are highly trusted sponsors will be able to offer courses below degree level.
	Another absolutely key item on which we have consulted is a stricter accreditation system, which we need to create. The accreditation system that has grown up for those private sector colleges in recent years is clearly not adequate, and we are talking to those who regulate education, as well as looking at the way in which we regulate immigration routes, so that a new accreditation system for those institutions can be introduced which ensures our confidence in them. In the past few days, we have finished the consultation, and we will finalise our proposals over the coming weeks and, of course, announce our response to the House as soon as possible.
	We want to create for student migration a strong framework that requires education providers to tighten and improve their selection and recruitment procedures. There will be a greater emphasis on quality, and we shall drive abuse out of the system. That will generate public confidence in the immigration system and ultimately be good for all the legitimate international students who are welcome to study here. Those changes to the student route are a vital building block in our overall immigration policy.
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).